1951-04-19

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. Browne (SJ. John's Wesl):: How much freight has been carried by the Newfoundland railway for the fiscal years 1947-48, 194849, 1949-50 and 1950-51?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
Information as to tons of freight carried is not compiled separately for the Newfoundland district. However, revenue ton miles, which are indicative of volume of traffic, are given below from date of entrustment, April 1, 1949, to December 31, 1949, and for the calendar year 1950 as follows:-
1949-9 mos. April 1, 1949 to Dec. 31, 1949, 99,858,503. 1950-12 mos. Jan. 1, 1950 to Dec. 31, 1950, 131,263,904.
Information is not available of record of freight carried by the Newfoundland railway prior to the date of entrustment to the Canadian National Railways for operation.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	How many tons of Nova Scotia coal have been delivered to the Canadian National Railways in each of the years 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950?
2.	How much of this coal was delivered from each of the following points (a) Springhill; (b) Maccan; (c) Pictou county: (d) Inverness; (e) Cape Breton?


William Moore Benidickson: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	1947, 415,293; 1948, 881,857; 1949, 717,501; 1950, 1,108,133.
2.	1947-Springhill, 67,439; Maccan, 21,137;
Pictou county, 108,582; Inverness, 701; Cape Breton, 217,434.	1948-Springhill, 134,717;
Maccan, 34,138; Pictou county, 181,898; Inverness, 3,270; Cape Breton, 527,834. 1949- Springhill, 104,885; Maccan, 29,460; Pictou county, 222,031; Inverness, 4,438; Cape Breton, 356,687.	1950-Springhill, 151,172;
Maccan, 31,087; Pictou county, 275,009; Inverness, 805; Cape Breton, 650,060.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. Argue:: 1.	With what provinces has the federal government reached agreement as to their 1951 trans-Canada highway construction program?
2.	How many miles of new construction on the trans-Canada highway does each province intend to build in 1951?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the above 1951 program for each province, and what amount has the federal government agreed to assume?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	No agreement is necessary between the federal government and the provinces regarding the annual construction program. Projects are planned and made ready for construction by the provinces and are then submitted to the federal authorities for approval prior to tenders being called.
2.	Information has not been received from any of the provinces as to the complete mileage of new construction contemplated in 1951.
3.	See answer to No. 2.


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What mileage, by provinces, of the trans-Canada highway was (a) completed in 1950; (b) under construction at December 31, 1950?
2.	What was the total construction cost in each province in 1950, and what amount was paid by the federal government in each case?


Mr. Winters:: 1. (a) No mileage of the trans-Canada highway was wholly completed in any province in 1950.
(b) Complete records are not available for the mileage under construction at December 31, 1950, but the mileage under construction at March 31, 1951, was as follows:
Miles
Grading Paving
Newfoundland	
153	..Prince Edward Island ....	19	..New Brunswick	
30	..Ontario	
145	66Manitoba	
30	44Saskatchewan	
151	..Alberta	
15	42British Columbia	
29	38Total	
572	190
2. Complete records of actual construction costs at the end of 1950 are not available, but

Questions
such records for the year ending March 31, 1951, will be available by May 1, 1951. However, the total estimated work committed, completed and under construction, together with the claims submitted to the federal government and paid as at March 31, 1951, were:
Work committed,
completed Claims and under submitted construction and paid
Newfoundland ..$ 2,781,860.00
Prince Edward
Island	 597,540.00
New Brunswick	1,612,404.00
Ontario	 9,567,265.76
Manitoba	 1,203,119.50
Saskatchewan ..	1,375,487.02
Alberta	 2,398,372.36
British Columbia	5,014,961.16



$ 923,279.26 68,066.71 1,063,719.72 245,514.99 269,960.27 14,975.87 1,205,900.27 $24,551,009.80 $3,791,417.09 ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE-CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	How many civilian personnel are employed' on the staff of the Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario?
2.	How many of these are members of the reserve forces?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Civilians employed on the staff of Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario; Women, 56 (5 of whom are veterans); Men-veterans, 108; Men-non-veterans, 33 (20 of whom are of military age and 13 of non-military age); total, 197.
2.	10.



EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Diefenbaker:: How many (a) beef cattle; (b) calves under six months; (c) dairy cows, were shipped to the United States in each month since November 1, 1950, to date?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: November	December	January	February	March1950	1950	1951	1951	1951No.	No.	No.	No.	No.(a)	Beef cattle 	
(b)	Calves under six months	. 53,809	35,911	17,997	14,904	20,010(cattle less than 200 lb.) ...	. 422	249	375	457	732(c) Dairy cattle 	. 2,531	2,307	2,927	3,948	3,978
Note: In trade statistics, calves are not recorded by age group but as "cattle weighing less than 200 pounds".



NORTH PACIFIC HALIBUT FISHERY CONVENTION

Mr. Applewhaiie:: 1.	Has the Canadian government carried on any negotiations with the United States of America during the past six months with a view to a revision of the north Pacific halibut fishery convention?
2.	If so, what decisions, if any, have been agreed upon?
3.	If no agreement has been reached, of what nature were the Canadian proposals?


Mr. MacNaughi:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Following informal discussions with United States State Department officials in November, 1950, a Canadian counter-draft of amendments to the north Pacific halibut fishery convention was forwarded to the United States government. No official reply has been received to the Canadian proposals.
3.	The Canadian proposals were to provide the international fisheries commission with additional powers to recommend to the; two governments regulations as follows:

(a)	Establish one or more open or closed seasons as to each area.
(b)	During both open and closed seasons limit to size, and limit or prohibit the incidental catch of halibut that may be taken from each area by vessels fishing for other species.
(c)	Make such regulations as it shall find necessary for the registration of fishermen and vessels engaged in fishing for halibut in the convention area.
The proposals also contained provision for appointment of one additional representative from each country on the international fisheries commission.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Sinnott:: How many married women over forty years of age are permanently employed by the dominion government, in each province?



DOMINION ELECTIONS


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State) moved:: That a special committee consisting of thirty members to be named later be appointed to study the several amendments to the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and amendments thereto, suggested by the chief electoral officer, to study the said act, to suggest to the house such amendments as the committee may deem advisable, and report from time to time, with power to send for persons, papers and records and to print the proceedings, and that the provisions of section 1 of standing order 65 be waived in respect to this committee.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we were not informed at six o'clock yesterday that this notice of motion would be proceeded with today. I had a few words that 1 wanted to say about it, and since the motion has now been called perhaps I have no alternative but to express at this time my thoughts on the motion.
I am sure we are all in agreement with the practice that is followed of setting up such a committee as this every once in a while so that the Dominion Elections Act can be reviewed. I understand that the chief electoral officer is constantly reviewing electoral practices, and when he feels there are changes that should be recommended he makes that fact known so that the committee can be set up and consideration given to ways to improve our election machinery.
Since the committee is to be set up and the act is to be reviewed, it seems to me that this is the occasion for members to indicate any matters which they feel should be given particular consideration. All of us in this house have had a good deal of experience with Canada's election machinery, and no doubt all of us have suggestions that we would like to make. There are a number I should like to make, but I shall confine myself on this occasion to one. 1 refer to the problem created for a great many electors in Canada by virtue of the fact that they do not happen to be in their own home constituencies on election day. In the election act there is provision for advance voting, but that privilege is accorded to a very limited number of people. It really does not fill the bill.
I think everyone will agree that, so far as the exercise of the franchise is concerned, the ideal is that it should be extended as widely as possible. Our aim should be to encourage Canadian citizens to get out and vote on election day. But the fact is that there are reasons that make it necessary for people to be away from their homes, away 80709-139J
Dominion Elections Act from their constituencies, on the day that the election happens to be held. People are sometimes away because of business. There are times, let it be said, when people are away on their holidays or vacations. When one realizes that many people in this country are tied to their work for 48, 50 or 51 weeks of the year, surely when they get one or two weeks' holidays it is a matter of importance that they get away if they possibly can. If an election falls when working people are away on their holidays, I suggest that some arrangement should be made to enable them to vote.
There are various ways in which it can be done. The simplest move to make-and I cannot understand why it was not made long ago-is to extend the right to advance voting and put it on a much broader basis. As I indicated at the start, we did not know this motion was going to be called today; therefore I do not happen to have the election act here, but I believe that advance voting is restricted to people who work for transportation companies and who are necessarily absent from their homes on election day in connection with their work. There are one or two other classes, such as fishermen and the mounted police. I hear some hon. members saying "commercial travellers", but I am not sure of that. At any rate there is obviously some doubt or uncertainty on that point. Certainly a great many people who find themselves away-frequently of necessity-on election day are not permitted to vote at the advance polls.
That is not true with respect to all elections in Canada. I know, for example, that in my own province of Manitoba the right to vote at advance polls in provincial elections is open to anyone who for any reason finds that he will have to be away on election day. No harm is done by virtue of that fact. No one abuses the privilege of democracy when he is allowed to vote in that way. I submit that the least that can be done with respect to this problem, so far as people away on election day are concerned, is that they should be allowed to vote at advance polls.
On a previous occasion when this matter was under discussion, I drew the attention of the house to the fact that there is another way in which this matter is handled in one province at any rate, and I refer to the province of British Columbia. In that province there is what is known as absentee voting. The mechanics are rather simple; if any qualified elector of the province of British Columbia is away from his home constituency on election day he may vote in whatever constituency he finds himself

Dominion Elections Act on that day. There is a special ballot for the purpose, so that he votes for one of the candidates in his own riding. The counting of absentee ballots takes place a little later than the counting of ballots cast in home constituencies and after that the final results are announced.	-
I have heard many complimentary things said about the way in which absentee voting operates in British Columbia. In order to make the picture complete, I believe I should point out that the right to vote in another constituency than one's own does not apply to persons moving about in the Vancouver or Victoria areas. For example, if your home is in one constituency in Vancouver you cannot claim the right to vote as an absentee voter in some other Vancouver constituency, but if your home is in Vancouver and you find yourself in the interior of the province on election day you do not thereby lose your vote. I submit that consideration might be given to working out something of that kind in connection with federal elections as well. I readily recognize the problem if one were to try to do it on a nation-wide basis-in other words, if an attempt were made to permit persons from Halifax to vote for the Halifax candidates of their choice anywhere in Canada; but at least it could be tried out within provincial areas.
I offer these suggestions in the hope that they will be taken into consideration by the committee. This is not the first time suggestions of this kind have been made on the floor of this house, and I believe they have been considered by similar committees on previous occasions. As yet, however, no action has been taken to alleviate the situation. I believe it is important that Canadians be encouraged to vote, and that the right to vote be accorded to them as widely as possible. The least I would hope that the committee might do this session with respect to this problem is to recommend an enlargement of the provisions with respect to advance voting.


Mr. Graydon:: A week or so ago, when
the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) was taking part in the debate on the constitution of the committee to deal with matters coming under his department, before the discussion proceeded he gave hon. members a general review of what he had in mind and some of the suggestions which were to be put forward by his department. Here we are to consider a number of amendments to the Dominion Elections Act which have been suggested by the chief electoral officer. I think it would be helpful to the house if the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) would give a review of what he has in mind,


indicating the amendments which have been suggested by the chief electoral officer, so that this matter may be debated in the regular and usual way. I am sure the minister is both eager and anxious to do this, and I want to give him an opportunity.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has moved the motion, and under the rules if he speaks now he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us give unanimous
consent. [DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the house gives
unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -the minister will close the debate if he speaks now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is objecting to unanimous consent being given?


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: I do not
feel it is necessary to make any extended remarks on this subject. I believe this is to be simply a continuation of the work commenced last session, which it is hoped to complete now. We should not take up a lot of time here on matters that can be dealt with much more expeditiously by the members of that committee. I have been a member of every elections committee appointed since 1936, and we have a fairly good act at the present time. One thing is still lacking, however-a system which will give us much better representation than we have at the present time. When the committee meets again I hope there will be strong support for the single transferable vote in single-member constituencies. I understand that this matter is now under consideration by the chief electoral officer, who has made quite a study of the problem. I understand also that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce received representations from all its branches across Canada giving strong support to this suggestion. I am looking forward to seeing that change made in the act this year.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of Ihe Opposiiion):: The suggestion has been made that the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) should explain the general intention as to the procedure to be followed, and also indicate the nature of the recommendations that have been made. Before that suggestion is disposed of, it seems to me that, after all, the main concern of every hon. member should be to make sure that the business of this house is carried on in the most expeditious and satisfactory manner. I should think it would be the desire of hon. members to give

unanimous consent to any procedure that would bring the most satisfactory results in dealing with a matter of this kind.
Surely no subject could be brought before this house for consideration which is of much greater importance to hon. members and to the people of Canada than the amendment of the act which provides for the democratic expression from time to time of the will of the people. In the motion before us there is an indication that apart from the general opinion of the members of that committee, and apart from such views as may be put forward by those asked to comprise the committee, the Secretary of State has received a number of recommendations. During the sittings of any important committee many hon. members who are not on the committee convey their opinions to members of the committee as to the subjects that should be brought forward, and give some indication of the views they feel should be expressed there. It appears that the Secretary of State has a number of recommendations of which hon. members generally are wholly unaware. I should think this would be the time for an expression of opinion as to some considerations which should receive particular attention by this committee. Without any attempt to impose the rules as a limiting factor, it would seem to me desirable that the Secretary of State should indicate the particular recommendations which will be put forward and the procedure he thinks should be followed, so that hon. members who are not on the committee will be in a position to make their recommendations to members of the committee as to what should be discussed.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when I had the honour to propose the name of the present chief electoral officer for that important post, not as a nominee of the government but as a nominee of this house, the proposal was received in this chamber with unanimous acclaim. I think we are all agreed that it is desirable that under the act the franchise shall be exercised as widely as possible, and no one would wish to insist upon any rule that unduly diminished the possibility of any elector exercising his franchise.
The chief electoral officer I am sure is objectively concerned at all times with what he feels from his experience, not only as chief electoral officer but as assistant to the chief electoral officer, may be workable. I do not think it would be in accord with the former practice, and perhaps not the right thing to do, for the government to make recommendations to the house as to what should be done under the elections act. Here
Dominion Elections Act we are endeavouring to set up a representative committee. We are bringing no pressure whatsoever upon the chief electoral officer as to the nature of his recommendations; and I would not like any of those recommended as members of this committee by the whip on this side to feel that they had any duty to the government in exercising their functions as members of that committee. It is not a matter of government and opposition; it is a matter of the general membership of the house striving to get the kind of act that will make it easier to bring to this house proper representation of the whole body of electors. I would hope that the committee would consider these recommendations which come objectively from the chief electoral officer without any thought as to how they might work to the advantage or disadvantage of one party or another.
It seems to me that those of us who will not be members of the committee will be entitled to attend and make representations directly to the committee, or have them made by someone who will be of its membership. The matter will be dealt with more expeditiously if the house defers any debate until the committee has made an investigation and submits recommendations. The recommendations of the committee will not be binding on the house, but when they are presented we shall have not only their substance but also the reasons which induced the committee to make them. We could then have a more profitable and expeditious debate than we can if we attempt now to discuss in advance recommendations which may or may not have been made to the Secretary of State by the chief electoral officer.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with the Prime Minister, because I am sure all members are anxious to produce the best election act possible. I want to make it clear that in suggesting that we should have proposals from the Secretary of State it was not my purpose to extend the debate. I thought that if we had a concise statement as to how the committee was to proceed, and some indication of the suggestions that were to be put forward, it might avoid a debate.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to debate this motion,, although there are certain matters connected with the elections act which I think are important. The debate, however, having been opened by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), I see no reason why I should not add my little bit.

Dominion Elections Act
Although I agree with much of what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said in connection with this resolution, I believe that it is in much the same position as any other resolution coming before this house for the setting up of a committee. The members of the house are free to express their opinions concerning any aspect of the act that may come before the committee.
I intend to be brief, but there are two things to which I should like to refer. One of those things will certainly have to have government approval before it can become law. In conversation with the returning officer in my own riding, Vancouver East, as well as with returning officers in other ridings in Vancouver at the last election, I found they were unanimous in insisting that they were cramped in carrying out their duties because of the smallness of the remuneration they were allowed to pay for help. I suggest that that is a matter which should come before the committee, and upon which the chief electoral officer should be in a position to guide the committee, as no doubt complaints have been made to him.
Then, there is the question of persons being unable to vote who are not in their constituencies on election day. I think I have been a member of all the election committees that have been set up by this house since I came here. This question has always been one that received a great deal of consideration by those committees. I am sure the members of the committees were anxious to extend voting privileges to those who may be absent from their ridings on election day, but the difficulty was to find a formula that would extend that advantage to those people without developing a procedure that might be abused. I believe I am correct in putting it in that way.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out, in the province of British Columbia we have developed a technique for allowing those who are not in their constituencies on election day to cast their ballot. I believe the formula is efficient and foolproof. It is the absentee ballot. It does not matter in what part of the province the voter happens to be on election day; if he wants to vote for the candidates in his riding he oan do so if his name is on the voters' list in the riding in which he resides. If the riding in which he lives and has his vote is a large one and, because of the distance, he is not able to be at the designated polling place in his riding, he can vote at any other polling place in the same riding. He cannot do that, of course, in the urban ridings.
I recall that in one election, I think it was in 1941, I was in the city of Prince George
[Mr. Maclnnis.l

on election day. I live in the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard, and I voted for the candidates in that constituency just as easily and just as effectively as if I had been at home on that day. I believe the method used in British Columbia can be adopted in federal elections just as easily as in provincial elections. However, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, it might be found advisable to limit the absentee vote to the constituencies within a province.
With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned I am quite willing to let these matters go to the committee and have them discussed there.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I think there could be several improvements made in this election act. Ever since I came here in 1940 there is one amendment about which I have been concerned, and that is the one which would provide for the transferable vote. I agree with the principles set forth by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in connection with making an effective act for the individual elector. From experience, however, I think there is plenty of proof that we should have the transferable vote.
In the general election of 1949, for instance, there were 121 members elected by a minority of the votes cast in their respective ridings; that is a very large percentage of the total number of members in this house. As a matter of fact, during that same election supporters of the present government, which has such an overwhelming majority, were elected to approximately seventy-five per cent of the seats in this house with less than fifty per cent of the vote which was polled across the country. I believe those figures were issued by the chief electoral officer at the time. I am not complaining about that and saying that the election act should be revised now, because that has happened on other occasions. But in a modern democratic nation we should reduce this sort of gamble as much as we can. It is important that this committee should recommend to the house an amendment to provide for the transfer of votes, so that if there is a multiplicity of candidates in a riding a candidate must receive a majority of the votes cast before he can be elected. I believe that change should be made in the interests of modern democracy.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to raise a point of order at this time as I did before. I rise now to take part in the debate, in order to suggest to the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) that, in view of the present voting hours provided for under our election act, a large and, if I may say so, growing group of voters are

virtually disfranchised. I refer more particularly to those who are now in that greatly increased class of people who commute from their residences to their places of work.
I suppose it will not be any news to hon. members to be told that there are now in Canada many people who are commuting from places as far as fifty miles or more away from their work. To travel these distances takes a considerable length of time, even if they use a motorcar, thus making for flexibility of hours which may meet their convenience in special instances. But there are large numbers of people-and a great number in my own riding-who use the train service morning and night in going to and coming from their work. What it means is this, if they are to continue to use that train service: they cannot stay long enough in the morning to vote, and they cannot get back early enough at night to do so. The committee ought to make a thorough study of that question; because, following up what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) so aptly said a few minutes ago, I fancy it is the desire of every member of this house that there should be, under an act of this kind, as little inconvenience, lack of accommodation and disfranchisement as possible.
I should also point out, Mr. Speaker, that this group of people to whom I have referred is rapidly increasing in numbers in many sections of Canada. What may not have been a problem ten, fifteen or twenty years ago has now become an acute one which these commuters and suburbanites feel is a matter of discrimination with regard to their franchise. I hope the committee will deal with that matter.
Before I sit down, inasmuch as the minister did not make a statement at the opening of this debate may I suggest that he take the opportunity of doing so before the debate closes, and of at least disclosing the information, with regard to amendments that was given to him by the chief electoral officer. When he does so, we will follow the principle laid down by the Prime Minister and will not regard him as a cabinet minister but just as one of the rest of us.


Mr. Abbott:: Does the hon. member want to make a third speech?


Gordon Graydon: I could, if you like.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Heaven forbid!


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The matter of amendments to the Dominion Elections Act is of course one of great moment
Dominion Elections Act to every member of this house. Hon. members will recall that last year a committee was set up to make a study of the elections act and to suggest such amendments as they deemed to be appropriate. At that time the chief electoral officer had a substantial number of proposals to make to the committee. Many of them were formal in character; some went to matters of substance. In particular I recall that one concerned my own province. It will be remembered that provision was made for a first election in the province of Newfoundland; but the force and validity of that particular provision has now been exhausted, and it is necessary that the situation be reviewed in order that Newfoundland, in any future election, may vote as do the other provinces of Canada. I think the same consideration applies to one or two other sections of the dominion.
I have not had any discussion of the matter with the chief electoral officer since then. Last year the matter went to the committee; and of course I am not a member of that committee. This year it is proposed to continue the work. At the moment I have no list of the amendments whidh were to be suggested by the chief electoral officer, nor have I any report of the committee which would indicate just what amendments they might be considering or might be prepared at some later date to recommend to this house. I feel, however, that the debate this afternoon has been of value. A number of suggestions have been offered, and I am sure that the committee will take due notice of them and give them serious consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the following members comprise the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act: Messrs. Applewhaite, Argue, Balcer, Boisvert, Boucher, Cameron, Cannon, Decore, Dewar, Diefenbaker, Fair, Fleming, Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Fulford, Harris (Grey-Bruce), Hellyer, Herridge, Jeffery, Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough), Mac-Dougall, McWilliam, Murphy, Nowlan, Pearkes, Power, Stick, Valois, Viau, Ward, Wylie.


Mr. McLure:: Is Prince Edward Island represented on the committee?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to report that agreement has been reached with the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan for

Inquiries of the Ministry establishing a large R.C.A.F. bombing and gunnery range roughly 100 miles northeast of Edmonton. The range will cover an area of several thousand square miles, and is necessitated by the high speed of modern jet aircraft and the long range of their weapons, including rockets and cannon, which result in a large increase in the danger area. There will continue to be a requirement for the existing bombing and gunnery ranges in current use.
The new range will also be used in connection with the development and evaluation of various forms of air weapons, including particularly air-to-air rockets.
The range will lie to the east of the Northern Alberta railway and will be roughly centred on Primrose lake. It will stretch about 115 miles from east to west and 40 miles from south to north, with the possibility of extension to the north if later required.
There are no settlements in the area, and compensation will be paid for any property rights in trap lines, etc., affected.
Construction will be commenced at once on necessary runways, operations buildings and barracks blocks, etc., at an estimated cost of $14 million.



REPORT AS TO PROPOSED EXPENDITURE AT MACDONALD AND PORTAGE AIRPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. Wood (Norquay):: I should like to direct certain questions to the Minister of National Defence. My inquiry is prompted by a news item appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 16, in reference to the airport at Gimli, Manitoba. It reads in part as follows:
But lack of adequate accommodation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should read the dispatch. He might ask the question.


Robert James Wood: My questions are: Has the minister seen the reports in the Winnipeg Free Press and the Portage la Prairie Graphic, wherein it is estimated that over $10 million will be expended this year on the airports at Macdonald and Portage? Is this correct?
Is it correct that the minister intimated, as suggested in the Graphic report, that small housing units should be prepared, and that Portage should "get going" on the project now?
If the minister has not seen the reports referred to I will send them over, and he can answer later.


Brooke Claxton: My attention was drawn to this matter only after coming into the house today. I shall be glad to look into it and give the hon. member an answer.



PACIFIC DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday President Truman announced plans for working out a security agreement between the United States and Australia and New Zealand which apparently is to lead to a full-scale Pacific pact comparable to the North Atlantic alliance. Will the minister tell the house where Canada fits into this picture?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The statement which was made by President Truman yesterday in Washington-and I believe statements were also made in New Zealand and Australia- referred to a proposed arrangement between the governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United States for mutual security pursuant to articles 51 and 52 of the United Nations charter. The Canadian government has been kept closely informed of those negotiations, and we have already indicated to the governments of Australia and New Zealand that we welcome them as an important contribution to the defence of freedom by increasing stability in the area to be covered by these arrangements. That area was referred to by the Australian minister of external affairs in a statement to the house of representatives in Canberra on March 14 last, when he said-and I am quoting from Mr. Spender's statement:
The objective has been to obtain an arrangement which will benefit the whole of the western Pacific area, guaranteeing friendly aid and protection in the event of a renewed threat of attack.
Yesterday in his statement President Truman did say that these arrangements constitute initial steps, not, as I understood him, necessarily to a Pacific pact, but initial steps in the consolidation of peace in that area. If these negotiations are extended to cover anything like a Pacific pact analogous to the North Atlantic pact, naturally the Canadian government would be interested; but we have received no indication that these additional negotiations are going to take place.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In
the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I should like to direct a

question to the Prime Minister. Has the statement of John .Fisher, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation commentator, made yesterday in Toronto, to the effect that immigrants coming to Canada from Europe are treated like cattle, and his description of his own experience recently on his return from Europe, been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister? If not, having regard to the importance of any statement made by Mr. Fisher, and the regard the people of Canada have for him, will that question be looked into?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The matter has not been drawn to my attention, and I should be very rhuch surprised if any responsible person compared the treatment received by immigrants to Canada as that proper to be given to cattle.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that I have sent over to the Prime Minister the article in question from the Telegram of yesterday, does he not consider that the statement is of such a nature that it should be looked into, particularly in view of the eminence of the person who is quoted as having made it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member was good enough to send over to me the clipping from the Telegram of Wednesday, April 18, which contains the statement that Mr. Fisher had witnessed bad treatment which he attributed to the picayune attitude of Canadians who, he said, resented the immigrants on grounds that there was a housing shortage and that there were not enough jobs to go round. He said that there had been treatment of one young woman which he resented, and that he felt like making representations to the immigration official.
The conduct of the immigration official will certainly be inquired into, because it is not the policy of the department to have anything but the greatest possible degree of kindness and courtesy shown to those who are coming here to become Canadians. If any official has behaved otherwise, his case should be very seriously considered. If he is not capable of carrying out the policy of the department, he should be relieved of his duties.
With respect to the statement that there are Canadians who have a picayune attitude about housing and jobs, we all know that the matter of substantial immigration, while it may have the approval of a vast majority of the people everywhere, is opposed by some.
Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS LAND ACT



BRANTFORD SUBDIVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):: 1
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the resolution which I believe his department received, and an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning, is the government prepared to establish immediately a committee of investigation to review charges of Brantford branch, local 461, of the Canadian Legion, that the Veterans Land Act administration sold waterlogged land to veterans, who are now in danger of losing their homes because water is being forced upward from an underground lake?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I have not seen the item appearing in the Globe and Mail to which my hon. friend refers, but I understand that it has to do with basement flooding which is being experienced by some veterans who are building their own houses on a Veterans Land Act subdivision in Brantford. This matter has received and is receiving the attention of the department. I may tell my hon. friend that a meeting is to take place tomorrow of the veterans themselves, the Legion, and representatives of the Veterans Land Act administration.
I might add that the property to which my hon. friend refers was purchased, I believe, in 1945, by the director of the Veterans Land Act, and it was purchased after having been inspected by qualified engineers who certified that it was suitable for building purposes. Up to 1950 some fifty houses were built there, and none experienced any unusual drainage problems. It is believed that the trouble in this area-there are sixteen further houses involved-is due mostly to the unusual water conditions this year. All these houses to which reference is made are not finished. Actually I believe there are only six which are finished and occupied; the others are in process of being built. That is given as one of the reasons for the trouble. However, the matter is well in hand and is being looked into.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
the Secretary of State, or if it is not something that he is responsible for, the appropriate minister, if he will be kind enough

Inquiries of the Ministry to look at Hansard of March 19, page 1384, which shows that a question which I asked was passed as an order for return. The return has not yet been brought down. I asked for a comparison of the amount requested to assist in the disastrous fire at Cabano and that requested to assist in the damage caused to the fruit orchards in British Columbia. I should be very glad indeed if the return could be expedited.



DIRECTORS OF CROWN COMPANIES


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: A question of mine was passed as an order for return two months ago today, as is indicated on page 454 of Hansard of February 19. I have not yet received the return.



NEWSPRINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production? Does the control over newsprint which was announced within the last day or so give the government authority to control the allocation of newsprint supplies within Canada to enable smaller publishers to get such newsprint as they require?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: That is not the purpose of the order, whether the authority is contained in the order or not. There is no present intention to control allocation of newsprint.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
st. John's, nfld,, convention
On the orders of the day:
William Joseph Browne: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Did he attend the convention of fishermen in St. John's, Newfoundland, in an official capacity? If he did so, has he any statement to make to the house'


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: do not think that a statement on a subject of that kind is one which I should make at this time.


William Joseph Browne: Did the
minister attend that convention in an official capacity? If he did not, in what capacity did he attend?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I was not there as Secretary of State for Canada.


Gordon Graydon: That is twice this week that you have divested yourself of your portfolio.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Charles Abbott: Last Monday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked if there had been a recent order in council relating to outside employment for civil servants. I indicated that there was such an order, and promised to give a statement at a later date, which I now wish to do.
Order in council P.C. 3/1440 lays down certain principles relating to outside employment undertaken by civil servants. Earlier orders in council dating back to 1925 had laid down the general principle that no fulltime civil servant earning more than $1,600 a year could engage in any outside gainful employment without the express approval of treasury board. Literally applied, this meant that no civil servant could, for example, receive payment for serving as an organist in a church, or even acting as a baby sitter, without prior approval by treasury board. This was manifestly inoperable and, in fact, the regulation has not been generally enforced.
After full discussion the national joint council of the public service of Canada recommended the new regulations which have been incorporated in P.C. 3/1440.
In effect, the new regulations define certain classes of prohibited employment; for example, where the employee would make use of confidential information acquired in the course of his duties.
In all other respects the control of outside employment has now been passed to the deputy heads of the departments, who may lay down principles applicable to their respective departments. Subject to such departmental rules as the deputy head may lay down, a civil servant may engage in non-prohibited outside employment so long as it does not impair his efficiency in the public service. Where a deputy head is of the opinion that outside employment is impairing the efficiency of the employee's regular duties, he may direct the employee to cease or to limit such outside employment.
I shall table a copy of the order in council, if it has not already been tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out that the minister has overlooked one aspect of my question? My question was based on the way in which this order was being interpreted in

the press. It is being interpreted as an order the purpose of which is to permit civil servants to supplement their government earnings. Has the minister any comment to make on that aspect of the matter?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not responsible for the interpretation that is put on these matters by the press. For the last twenty-five years there has been an order in council respecting outside employment, and I summarized the terms of it. It was felt that it was inoperable and unenforceable; consequently a new order in council was drafted which sets out certain employment in which civil servants may not engage. So far as other jobs are concerned, that rests with the deputy head of the department.


Gordon Graydon: Are there very many cases of that kind in the civil service?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no idea.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) regarding an investigation of the working conditions of mail carriers in Toronto, as reported on page 2142 of Hansard. In reply may I say that as a result of the investigation conducted in Toronto the department authorized the postmaster to make a cut of one walk for every four walks, instead of one in three. This was done. The whole situation is constantly under study.



GASOLINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, based on a Winnipeg press report indicating an increase in the price of gasoline of two cents a gallon. Can the minister explain how an increase in the sales tax of considerably less than one cent per gallon becomes two cents per gallon at the retail level?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that the price rise is two cents a gallon. I am not in the gasoline business. The increase in the sales tax is two per cent, and merchants who have commodities to sell presumably are adjusting their prices accordingly. I do not make their prices, and there is no control so far as the
80709-140J
The Budget-Mr. G. S. White government is concerned over the price of gasoline, any more than there is over most other commodities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The increase in the sales tax would be only about half a cent per gallon.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 18, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. G. S. White (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, today at 12.30 the ears of the whole world were tuned to Washington to hear an address by that great soldier, General Douglas MacArthur. His classic speech will long be remembered, not only by our American cousins but throughout the entire world where freedom still survives today. His remark that the American concept of human liberties was the best yet devised and his remark that the hopes and aspirations of the human race centred in the historic chamber from which he was speaking may to the same degree apply to Canada and to this chamber.
The warning of General MacArthur that you cannot appease communism in Asia may well be repeated in this house. His reference to the dignity of all mankind should be remembered. His warning of there being no substitute for victory or a sham peace laying the base for future demands should be well heeded by all pacifists and isolationists in Canada. His reference to prolonged indecision, political indecision and the lack of reinforcements for the American army when he called for reinforcements may well be pondered over by this government.
Those of us who were here in the 1944 parliament well remember the tragic price that Canada had to pay for the lack of trained reinforcements for service overseas. There are many in Canada today who feel that the strength of our armed forces is much too low in view of the world situation. I sincerely hope that the reason for this is not the result of political indecision.
In taking part in the budget debate I wish to refer only briefly to certain matters which have been discussed already by other members. It has been pointed out already to the

The Budget-Mr. G. S. White Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that corporation profits during the past year have been at an all-time high, while the net income of the primary producers has been decreasing. While the minister has imposed an additional 20 per cent surtax on corporations, I think he will find that at the end of the year when their statements are issued profits for 1951 will be even higher than in 1950. In the past it has been proven that when additional taxes are imposed on corporations it simply means that the price of the product or manufactured article is raised and the increase is passed on to the consumer. After all, there is nothing to prevent a manufacturer of washing machines, radios, or anything else from setting his own prices. As the Minister of Finance pointed out a moment ago, he has nothing whatever to do with setting the retail price of gasoline. Neither has the minister nor the government anything to do with setting the price of any product. Therefore I submit that, so far as many corporations are concerned, these additional taxes will simply be passed on to the consumer.
Many speakers have already referred to the 20 per cent increase in personal income tax. In his remarks the minister indicated that he was pleased and took credit for not lowering the exemption. If the minister wanted to take credit for doing something, he could have easily increased the exemptions to $1,500 and $3,000 respectively, and he would have received cheers and credit all across the country. The minister should remember that when the exemptions were set at their present figures the value of the Canadian dollar was much higher than it is today, and the cost of living index was much lower than it is at the present time.
The so-called luxury tax is most unfair in many aspects. I for one often wonder who the experts are who decide what items are to be classed as luxuries. We live in a cold climate, so let us take furs, for example. Under the system of taxation it does not matter whether the fur in question costs $75, $200 or $500. They are all subject to the same rate of tax. The same applies to a watch. It does not make any difference whether it costs $50, $300 or $500. The same scale of taxation applies to many other items which today are classed as luxuries. I suggest to the minister that in the taxation of these so-called luxury items some limit or line be established whereby the tax would only apply to such articles when they exceeded a certain price. There are many other items classed as luxuries today such as clocks, luggage, pens, and so on. It is rather difficult to understand how the minister can justify

taxing these items of ordinary everyday use and necessity when at the same time expensive articles of furniture, oriental rugs and oil paintings are not taxed.
The new tax of 15 per cent on washing machines and other electrical equipment is in my opinion most unfortunate. In Ontario at least the hydro commission each year builds hundreds and hundreds of miles of new hydro lines. For the first time many new consumers are able to obtain the benefits of cheap power and the great benefits that flow from the use of the many electrical appliances we have today. Naturally these people, who for the first time are hooked up with hydro, have no electrical equipment of any kind, and today they find that on top of the present very high price for electrical equipment they are faced with an additional 15 per cent tax. It seems to me that many articles for which electricity is used are too high today. Take, for example, the ordinary electric stove, which is not a complicated piece of machinery. Nevertheless the average price in Ontario, without the additional 2 per cent sales tax and the 15 per cent excise tax, is $300. The same high prices apply to practically every other type of electrical equipment. Young married couples furnishing their first home will find that these taxes on absolute necessities impose great hardship. These young people are faced with the necessity of buying electrical equipment not because of the fact that the minister has put a tax on stoves but because in the great majority of cases electricity is the only thing used for cooking and other purposes.
I agree with the remarks made the other evening by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with respect to medical deductions for income tax purposes. I think the minister could well afford to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. member and allow all medical expenses as a deduction. In my opinion the present method of allowing the amount over 4 per cent of the net income, with the provision that such figure is not to exceed $750 for a single person and $1,000 for a married person, should be abolished. I would point out to the minister that when the 4 per cent provision was inserted in the income tax law hospital charges, nursing fees, doctors' fees, surgeons' fees and all other fees pertaining to sickness were much lower than they are at the present time. I know from personal experience that I have had occasion many times to examine medical bills both in connection with estates and for income tax purposes, and I am always amazed at how much it costs to be ill or to have an operation. I think the change suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg

North Centre is very fair, and is worthy of serious consideration by the minister.
I should also like to bring to the attention of the minister an item appearing in the brief submitted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce on the 23rd of February, 1951, having to do with the Dominion Succession Duty Act. The submission in the brief is as follows:
The chamber reiterates its protest that in estates over $50,000 the federal government levies succession duties not only on the excess of $50,000 but on the initial $50,000, thus establishing an inequality of exemption, and setting up in the Succession Duty Act a discriminatory provision.
It is pointed out in the submission that there is inequality of exemption, and I suggest to the minister that his department could well afford to amend the act so that there would be an allowance of $50,000 in all estates thereby removing this inequality of exemption. I am sure the loss suffered by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) would be very small.
As the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is here, I wonder if he has seen the very interesting picture that appeared on the front page of the Ottawa Journal of yesterday. It shows the foundation for the new printing bureau across the river in Hull, and the heading is, "How's the Fishing?" Then there is this comment:
Boaters and hopeful anglers this morning were "cruising down the river" on a newly formed body of water in the excavation of the government printing bureau in Hull. The water was 19 feet deep, and was formed by the backing up of flood-swollen Brewery creek.
I presume it is water; it does not say it was beer.
Works department pumping crews this afternoon were pumping the water back into the creek so that the work on the superstructure could go on. The 13-acre printing bureau site cost the federal government more than $800,000 in expropriation payments.
I should like to suggest to the minister that if he is having difficulty with the location over there he might move the location to my riding. There is plenty of good high land and the foundations could be built on solid rock. The cost of the land would not be anything like $800,000.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I will take it into
consideration.


George Stanley White: I
must say that if you come up there you will not be able to fish out the windows, but I can assure you that you will not have far to go to enjoy the best fishing to be found anywhere in Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on the dairy industry in Canada. I want to
The Budget-Mr. G. S. White commend the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) on the very fine, fair presentation he made in this house on behalf of the industry last Monday. I agree with, and concur in every way in, the remarks made by the hon. member, which will be found at page 2071 of Hansard. For a long period the county in which I live has been a great producer of cheese. For many years it produced more cheese than any other county in Ontario. The famous Black Diamond cheese, manufactured and cured in this county, is becoming famous in many countries, and every year the demand in the United States is increasing. The importance of the cheese industry to this county is indicated by the fact that the first producer storage plant to provide cheese curing, storage and laboratory facilities was erected at Belleville.
Since Hastings is an agricultural county it is only natural that the farm producers should be greatly concerned about any fall in prices which affects their products. The very serious inequity as between urban and rural producers which existed at the outset of the war could not be cured1 by wartime controls. In order to get production at that time labour were given practically everything they asked, but at the same time farm products were strictly controlled. It is quite clear now that the unavoidable wartime controls and the unnecessary peacetime compulsory marketing and political prices since the war have cost the Canadian farm producers hundreds of millions of dollars, and it seems to me the government should take some action to reimburse the farm producers of eastern Ontario and Quebec for the losses they have sustained.
Apparently the government recognized that it had some obligation in the matter. I will not say it was a legal obligation; it could only be a moral obligation, but already they have approved the payment of $65 million to reimburse western farmers who sold their product under practically the same conditions.


James Arthur Ross: That was just a token payment.


George Stanley White: It
shows the advantage to any group of producers in Canada in being well organized and exerting great pressure on the government, as well as having their members in the house make insistent demands in their behalf. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) went to England to see what could be done to obtain further moneys for Canada to pay for our wheat. He was unable to make any settlement, however, and as a result of his visit the general public of Canada have had to pay $65 million as a bonus to western farm producers. The farmers of eastern Ontario

The Budget-Mr. G. S. White and Quebec certainly will have to pay their share of this $65 million, despile the fact that during the same period their products were being shipped to Britain at much lower prices than prevailed in the United States. The cheese and bacon of eastern Ontario and Quebec were requisitioned and confiscated, and the producer had absolutely nothing to say in the matter. If there is an obligation, even only morally, to pay the western wheat producers, there is exactly the same moral obligation to make up to the producers of eastern Ontario and Quebec the losses they sustained on the sale of their products. And if the payment of $65 million was made on a moral basis only, then I suggest that the whole issue of the post-war food contracts with Britain should be reopened and reviewed.
During the war there was never any question of a surplus of farm products. The government encouraged farmers to increase production of every kind. The farmers did increase their stock and their acreage, and this at a time when farm labour was scarce and machinery was hard to get and very expensive. The production of foodstuffs was greatly increased, both for civilian use and for the members of the armed services. But during the war years farm products were strictly controlled, and the farmer had1 no price tag on them. During the same period, however, industry did have a price tag on its products. In many cases industry operated on a cost plus basis, and that is the way industry operates today. There is a price tag on every article turned out, and' that price tag makes sure that the manufacturer gets back his cost of production plus a very fair profit.
In his remarks the hon. member for Lanark gave the results of a survey in his county, which showed that in one year the average farmer lost $147 on his milk production. In its report in 1947 the Ontario royal commission on milk showed that it cost $2.69 to produce one hundred pounds of milk for cheese, while the milk producer received in return only from $1.95 to $2.10. I should like to quote a few paragraphs from this report. Under the heading "Price and cost of production" it says:
The farmer producing fluid milk for consumption in towns and cities of the province is as much entitled to a fair return for his work as a consumer who works in a factory or an office. If up to the present time, through lack of sufficiently effective organization, he has not been able to make his demands felt, that is not a reason for asking him to produce milk for the fluid market at prices less than his cost plus a reasonable profit. He is primarily entitled to the costs of producing milk and to a fair profit for that labour.

In regard to milk and cheese the commission found these very interesting facts:
The results of an over-all survey made by the accountants attached to the commission . . . show an average net cost of producing one hundred pounds of cheese milk in 1946 to be $2.34, to which an administrative allowance of 35 cents was added, making a total cost, including administrative allowance, of $2.69 for one hundred pounds of cheese milk.
At the time of the inquiry . . . the return to the cheese milk producer was estimated at between $1.95 and $2.10 ... If the average figure is one of general application, as I believe it is, it would seem to substantiate the contention brought forward by the cheese producers association that the price structure existing at that time did not permit a return to the farmer sufficient to pay his cost of production and give him even a modest profit.
If it cost $2.69 to produce one hundred pounds of cheese milk in 1946, certainly it will cost a great deal more in 1951, because as everyone knows the cost of labour and materials has greatly increased. Yet, so far as 1950 is concerned, the milk producer was only receiving approximately $2 per hundred for his milk. In 1950 the cheese producer received 28 cents at seaboard for his product under a contract made by the Minister of Agriculture. The cheese producer had no say in the matter. Additional freight rates and increased cost of production will no doubt further reduce the returns to the cheese producer in 1951.
I would point out that since 1941 over 150 cheese factories in the province of Ontario have closed. In the district in which I live I know of three factories which will not operate during the 1951 season. Speaking to the farmers who have formerly sent milk to these factories, they tell me they will not continue sending milk for prices similar to those which they received in 1950. In many cases the production of milk is simply a sideline. Many farmers will -not continue to produce milk for the production of cheese -at a loss. I would point out that cheese, butter and other farm products were most important during the war for food for both armed forces and civilians. Surely as a defence measure for the future at least the remaining cheese factories should be kept in operation.
I recall that only a short time ago a protest was made in this house against certain cheap foreign shirts from Japan that were being dumped on the Canadian market. Apparently the Canadian textile industry had enough influence or brought enough pressure to bear on the proper authorities to have the importation stopped. If it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, for the textile industry to have protection of that type, surely then it is not unreasonable to ask that the dairy producers have some sort of protection from

substitutes shipped into this country, and then manufactured into food products which take the place of natural food products.
On Monday last the Minister of Agriculture stated that no decision had yet been reached as to the price of butter for this year. No doubt the minister and his department have received many letters, telegrams and petitions

as many members have-from farm groups and cream associations requesting that a floor price for butter be set at 62 cents a pound. I for one hope the minister will see fit to recommend a floor price for butter of 62 cents a pound.
So far as cheese is concerned, I fail to see how our producers can operate on even smaller margins of profit if the price in 1951 is less than 32 cents a pound, and that f.o.b. the factory. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. Does he feel that the price of 28 cents a pound at seaboard received by the cheese producers of Ontario in 1950 was a fair and reasonable price, and a price at which the milk producer for cheese could operate at a profit?
As I have mentioned to the minister before, there are many veterans in my county who used their gratuities and re-establishment credit to set themselves up in farming. These veterans have heavy commitments to meet in the future, and if they are to be successfully re-established in our peacetime economy they must receive better returns for their farm products. Not long ago a dairy farmer was one whose main objective was to produce and sell milk, and his farm was run to that end. Today the average dairy farmer, apart from the one who produces whole milk for large communities, simply means a farmer who keeps cows as a sideline. It could not be otherwise, considering the prices of manufactured milk during the past few years and the rising cost of everything that a farmer must purchase, including labour. Any man dependent wholly upon his milk cheque during the past few years would have to be pretty good to keep his head above water.
The dairymen in eastern Ontario and Quebec have been kept in business by a thriving export business for dairy cattle, and the high prices paid for any kind of animal that could be used as meat. I know that in my county every week in the year there are buyers from New York state who are anxious to buy dairy cattle. I admit that the prices are good, in fact the prices are extra good. Unfortunately every year the number of cattle in the county is seriously decreasing. No doubt there are some farmers who never sell on the export market, but they have a ready sale to other farmers and
The Budget-Mr. G. S. White to local butchers willing to buy all their young cattle for beef. So far as the dairy farmer is concerned, this is not good. It has made him content to accept low prices for manufactured milk, such as those prevailing last summer. It has also made him indifferent to the fight against substitutes for milk and cream. This has been most noticeable lately. The use of substitutes for milk and cream strikes at the very core of the dairy industry, not just butter but every other product that is made from milk.
Some time ago it was reported that in the city of Toronto alone the large bakeries had discontinued their daily purchases of hundreds of cans of thick cream. They are now using a filled product, the chief ingredient of which is imported into Canada. The uses to which this imported filling can be put are practically endless. Certainly, it could be used in cheese and probably will be in the future if something is not done to assist this industry. For the past ten years there has been no problem connected with the sale of pork and cheese. Both these products were taken by the British, but not always under satisfactory conditions. It now appears as though this whole method of trading and doing business with the British would end unless there is another war. It can practically be taken for granted now that a cheese contract for 1951 based on 1950 prices will be little more than a farce.
So far as cheese and bacon are concerned the British want all we can give them, but they feel that they cannot afford to pay the prices which are necessary to secure those supplies today. A curious sidelight on this aspect is that, while the British are not willing to pay the going prices for our food or raw materials, their own charges for manufactured articles exported to Canada are very high. If you look about in the stores you will find that everything of British manufacture is expensive. No one will ever find a bargain. Occasionally that is a little hard to understand.
A short time ago an article appeared in the Farm Journal under this heading: "More Talk of Wanting Cheese and Bacon". The article reads in part as follows:
There has been another article in the daily papers to the effect that the United Kingdom "wants" more cheese and bacon from Canada in 1951 than she obtained this year, and again the suggestion- she was unwilling to increase the price.
It is about time this sort of talk ceased and things got down to a businesslike basis.
Things are in a bad- enough mess in the Canadian-dairy industry without this sort of talk. The best course would be for Mr. Gardiner to stop it all by telling the British that if they want cheese and bacon they should go into the open market, and pay for it as Canadians have to pay. If he wants to be generous and big hearted he can make any kind of

The Budget-Mr. G. S. White a "contract" he wishes, and be prepared to pay a subsidy. He should not again expect Canadian producers to foot the bill.
The article continues:
Add to the competition from foreign oils the fact that cheese and now powdered milk products are coming into this country from Australia and New Zealand, whose production costs are evidently a lot lower than here in Canada. It is being rumoured that New Zealand whole milk powder will undersell the Canadian product by six cents a pound.
Then there is the riddle of butter. Despite the inroads of margarine on the butter industry all signs point now to a shortage of domestic stocks of butter next spring. The production situation on the prairies is particularly bad, and much of the surplus comes from there.
We are likely to see imports of butter into Canada by next spring. Which means that every Canadian dairy product, except whole milk, will have competition from outside sources on a price basis. It is doubtful if such a situation ever faced the whole industry here before.
And certain new developments in the canned milk trade do not leave even the whole milk people free from the threat of a new kind of competition.
I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) if in 1951 we are to have a repetition of our own cheese being requisitioned at 28 cents at seaboard and the permitting of New Zealand cheese at 32 cents to 34 cents to be imported into the country in order to meet our domestic needs. The recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada allowing the sale of margarine was another blow to the dairy industry. Certain Canadian companies are making huge fortunes out of the manufacture of margarine. It will be recalled that in this house it was often said that if the manufacture of margarine was permitted in Canada the Canadian farmer would benefit because he would be able to produce certain crops from which oil could be produced; but we all know that there is no Canadian product that we could produce that could compete with the imported edible oils produced in many cases under conditions which we in Canada could only class as slave labour.
It was pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) that over two million Canadians depend on the dairy industry for their livelihood. He asked a pertinent question, namely, how many Canadians were employed in the manufacture of margarine. This large number of Canadians who depend on the dairy industry for their livelihood supply a large part of the purchasing power for Canadian goods. One wonders if all this is to be swept aside; if the dairy industry, which has always been one of the basic industries of this country, is gradually to fade out; and if our butter, cheese and other dairy products are, in the future, to be made out of substitutes imported from abroad.

The minister has not yet announced any contract for cheese for 1951 or whether or not cheese will be requisitioned. At the present time it certainly appears that the production of cheese in 1951 in Ontario will reach another all-time low. Everyone knows that producing herds in Canada are at a low figure; and in the event of war it will take a long time to build up those herds. Surely it is just as much part of the program for defence to build up our food producing defences as it is to buildj up our military defences; for certainly, if war comes again, Canada will be expected to provide huge supplies of food products for our allies, for the armed forces and for the civilians.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture, even at this late date, will see fit to recommend to his cabinet colleagues, as he did before, that something should be paid as compensation to the cheese and bacon producers of eastern Canada, and especially to those in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, in order to compensate them in some way for the loss they suffered on the sale of their dairy products to the United Kingdom during the same period that the wheat was sold. As I pointed out before, if there was any moral obligation to pay the wheat producers, there is the same obligation to pay a like amount to the bacon and cheese producers. However, if the minister will not recommend any such payment I would ask him at some time to explain to the house how he could justify the $65 million paid when no legal obligation existed. If no payment is to be made-and frankly, I for one do not expect that any such payment will be made-the citizens of Canada can only regard the payment of $65 million to the western farmers as a well-organized raid on the federal treasury, which raid was led and engineered by the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. F. G. Robertson (Northumberland, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this budget debate, I wish to add my appreciation to that already expressed by previous speakers of the able and patriotic attention which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) continues to give to his exacting duties. His presentation of this budget again demonstrates that he has a wide knowledge of the economic situation in Canada and is giving us wise leadership in the financial field. I consider this budget to be a realistic one, considering the present international situation. It is not a pleasant budget, but I believe it is not an unfair one.
No one can quarrel with the minister's statement that, in the framing of this budget, he was guided by concern over two vital

matters, namely, the pursuit of peace and the control of inflation. These matters are the first concern of all of us. We are ready to make severe sacrifices in order to attain them both. His review of Canada's economic activities was constructive. He told us of our huge national production. Last year it amounted to about $18 billion. We find that there are 130,000 more people employed than there were a year ago, in spite of the unemployment situation which was so sorrowfully predicted by the members of the opposition. Our international trade is in good condition. We maintained the volume of our export trade. Our imports increased to some extent. This is a condition which we all welcome, because we are now importing more from the British empire, thereby earning for the British dollars which they greatly need. I believe that this change in the direction of our trade is a good thing for the entire British empire. I am pleased to see that we have a balanced budget, with a surplus of $203 million. Members of the opposition have objected to having a surplus; but in my humble opinion, running a government is much like running an individual business. If you are in debt, it is wise to pay off that debt. I do not consider that it is inflationary. I insist that it is antiinflationary, as the Minister of Finance has stated it to be. The hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming), as reported at page 2107 of Hansard, had this to say with regard to a balanced budget:
The minister has said he wants to balance his budget. I do not think a single member of this house will have any disagreement with that professed objective. We all wish to see this budget balanced this year; . . .
Later on he continues, on the same page:
I submit, sir, that the first duty of a minister of finance in submitting a budget is to give the house a true estimate, and as accurate an estimate as can possibly be devised, of the expected revenues accruing from the various fields of taxation.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that our present Minister of Finance did just that. How could anyone, one year ago, predict the great buoyancy of revenue which we experienced during 1950? Certainly the members of the opposition did not make any such prediction. Had the minister followed the advice of the members of the opposition, when they were predicting early in 1950 prolonged unemployment and a serious recession of business, he would have been forced to conclude that even higher taxes than he recommended at that time would be necessary to ensure a balanced budget.
I believe that the reduction of our national debt to the extent of nearly $2 billion over
The Budget-Mr. Robertson the last five years is a remarkable achievement. When we remember that the interest charges of that amount would be in the neighbourhood of $70 million, I think we have made a great contribution in giving tax relief to the people of our country.
I also believe that the government has a notable achievement in the field of economy. We have reduced our estimates on nondefence expenditures by $35 million, and this in spite of the fact that we have had increased salaries, increased wages, and the fact that we are giving to old age pensions, family allowances and the provincial governments $40 million more than last year, over which we have no control.
The members of the opposition cry extravagance. I should like to read some of their statements. The hon. member for Eglinton said at page 2109 of Hansard of April 17:
Is there any extravagance? Well, sir, time alone prevents my giving in greater detail some of these examples of extravagance; but let me remind you of just one or two examples. Last year, my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), put before the house the startling-yes, shocking-fact that expenditures on travelling, publicity and sundries in the estimates of that year totalled $49 million, exhibiting a startling increase year by year, as the government spending machine has demanded more and more oil. What do we find this year has been accomplished by the government in this so-called "economy drive" in relation to travelling expenses? Well, we find, sir, that the Minister of Finance reports an increase in the appropriation for travelling and removal expenses, going up from $27,786,602 in the year 1950-51 to a figure of $36,300,109 for this current fiscal year. Let me remind you, sir, that the figures last year included defence expenditures as well.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when I looked into this matter further I found that there had been an increase over last year of approximately $8,522,507; but when I checked it further I found that of this increase $8,378,108 could be charged to national defence and defence construction. That means that the shocking disclosure which the hon. member for Eglinton gave to this house shows that the government did increase the expenses of travelling to the extent of approximately $140,000; and when we look into these expenditures further we find that nearly the whole of this sum has been necessary in increased expenditure of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and we all know how necessary in times of threatened war an increase in the activity of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is. There we have the startling and shocking disclosure that the hon. member for Eglinton has used to impress this house that this government did greatly increase its expenditures on travelling.
When we come to the matter of printing I know that there is an increase this year of some $775,279. Yet the increase in printing

The Budget-Mr. Robertson on behalf of national defence and the Department of Defence Production is indeed greater than that amount. That shows, Mr. Speaker, how much we can depend upon the charges made by some members of the opposition.
I have this further quotation from Hansard. Speaking on April 17, at page 2097 of Hansard, the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) said:
I wish I had time to enumerate the many instances of wasteful expenditure of money that should rightfully have been saved for the taxpayers.
This comes from the hon. member who asked many more millions of dollars for the wheat farmers of Canada. I would suggest that he should talk to his deskmate because they certainly do not agree on the wheat policy.
Then we heard much of government extravagance on publicity and publications, and hon. members of the opposition singled out the Department of National Health and Welfare for this attack. I happen to be a medical man and I stand here and say that the money spent on such publications has been spent in the best interests of Canada. We know that greater and greater emphasis is being placed on preventive medicine. We believe that we can save much money and much human suffering if we can prevent disease rather than to try to cure it; and there is no better way to bring to the people of Canada the need for preventive medicine and what they can do to enjoy good health than these publications which come from the Department of National Health and Welfare.
We know that we are making progress against that dreaded disease cancer, but we know that one of our great difficulties in dealing with this matter is the ignorance and fear which exist in the minds of the people of Canada. These publications can bring a true picture to the people of Canada, and they can derive much benefit from them, and they know where they can come to seek relief from that dreaded disease. The same can be said of many other diseases. I say that the money which is being spent on these publications is being well spent.
Last year we had a very entertaining afternoon when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) produced some pamphlets which he had picked up from the Post Office Department, and he made some dreadful charges that the Post Office Department was spending thousands of dollars on such publications. When we learned the whole truth from the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) the next day we learned that the huge sum of $2,000 had been spent on these publications, and we learned also what a good purpose those 	. ft 1 I

publications were serving. There again, Mr. Speaker, we have an exposure of the lack of details in the charges which members of the opposition use to attack the government on the extravagance subject. I maintain that the best proof of the efficiency of this government in financial affairs is to be found in the fact that little or no factual criticism has been produced by opposition members. They may tell us that they have not time to go into these things, but I am sure that the rules of the house give every hon. member all the opportunity he needs to bring forth factual criticism of the expenditures of this government.


Mr. Sinclair:: And the public accounts committee as well.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Right. Let me give another example. The very able parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who got his name on the record just in time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Mutch:: Nice teamwork.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: -this session answered the challenge of the leader of the opposition of this reckless expenditure of money by going over the estimates item by item and asking any hon. member of the opposition to tell him what he wished to see deleted, and I did not see any one of those hon. members getting up in his place and saying: Let us cut this out.
Coming back to the budget itself, I must say that labour is very pleased to note that union dues are to be allowed as a deduction from income tax. I attended a meeting of labour some months ago and they told me that they felt that this was an unfair tax that they were paying. I agreed with them at that time and assured them I would do what I could to have this corrected. I regret that I was not in the house because of illness when the resolution was presented asking that union dues be not subject to taxation. If I had been here I certainly would have voted in favour of such a resolution.
I regret the need of having to place in the budget a 15 per cent tax on certain household goods, particularly stoves. I realize that in imposing this tax on stoves the minister was not thinking of the revenue that would be derived therefrom but was using this as an anti-inflationary move. It is anti-inflationary because the government is trying to conserve steel for more essential purposes, but I would hope that as soon as this inflationary pressure declines the government will do away with the taxes on stoves, refrigerators and other necessary household articles.

The international situation is still of great concern to all of us. Only the good judgment and cool courage of the leaders of the free world has stopped the Korean war from becoming a full-scale war. We are indeed proud of the part which our own leaders, particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), have played in this cause of peace. I am sure they have our hearty support.
We are much interested in the critical situation which has developed in the United States where it has become necessary for the President to recall that famed soldier. General MacArthur, from command in the Far East. I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member who preceded me said about General MacArthur. I believe that he is one of the outstanding leaders of the free world. I deprecate what was said in this house about Gerferal MacArthur by an hon. member not long ago. I think it reflected little credit on that hon. member or on this house.
We had the privilege of hearing General MacArthur today and I am sure that he has proved beyond any doubt that he is one of the outstanding men of this generation. I personally support the President in what he has done because I believe that as one of the bases of democratic government there should be full control over the military.
We who are completely uninformed on what is going on in the inner circles must be prepared to give our full support to the great men who are leading us today. But I think we also have the right to demand that there shall be no appeasement in this present situation.
Not long ago President Truman in a broadcast revealed that before the Korean war Moscow-trained officers instructed spies and soldiers that the plan was to liberate all Asia, crush the United States and accomplish the long awaited world revolution. The whole communist imperialism, said the President, is back of the attack on peace in the Far East. It was the Soviet union that trained and equipped the North Koreans for aggression. The Chinese communists massed forty-four well-trained and well-equipped divisions on the Korean frontier. These were the troops they threw into battle when the North Korean communists were beaten.
In view of that statement I trust it is not an idle hope to expect to be able to separate Peking from Moscow. I certainly agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he said in a broadcast not long ago, I believe from Lake Success, that the free nations of the world must do everything in
The Budget-Mr. Robertson their power to prevent another great war. He said that if we are to have another war it was most important that we have overwhelming public support for our cause. I think that that is vital for our security and our survival.
I hope sincerely that history is not repeating itself and that in asking us to take stronger action against the enemy General MacArthur is not another Churchill crying in vain in an effort to awaken the democratic nations to their real danger. I ask our leaders to weigh that possibility and I hope that any decision they make will be governed by that. We have a right to ask of our leaders that there be no mistake in this matter because it is far too vital to permit a second chance.
I was much interested in the discussion which took place in this house last Friday with regard to the St. Lawrence waterway development. One could not help but be struck by the fact that hon. members from the maritimes of all political parties objected to the construction of the St. Lawrence waterway. One can well appreciate the worry that those members might have at feeling that the construction of such a seaway would interfere with the economic well-being of their part of the country. I cannot help but feel that their fears are unfounded. I believe that if this development goes through the whole economy of Canada will profit, and it will also be of benefit to the people of the maritimes.
I know the vast majority of the people in my -riding look forward to the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. They think it will be advantageous to their part of the country to have ocean-going boats in the great lakes. They know the value they will receive from the development of electric power and they appreciate the urgency of the development of this project from a defence point of view. Therefore I feel that I can tell the house that the people in central Ontario welcome this project.
I note the railway brotherhoods have submitted a brief to the government against the development of the St. Lawrence seaway. I can understand that they are worried that the development of this project may interfere with their livelihood. But I know also that the heads of both the railroads in Canada are behind the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. I am sure that they are interested in the welfare of their own employees as well as of the railroads. If I did not believe that, I could not support the construction of this project because many of my best friends in Cobourg are members

The Budget-Mr. Robertson of the railway brotherhoods and I could not recommend anything to this house that might prejudice their livelihood.
I believe that this project will mean much to the development of the ports on the great lakes. We in Cobourg look forward to the day when ocean-going ships will come direct to our town. We have one of the finest harbours on the great lakes. Contrary to what was said the other night by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford), that there was no way of keeping these ports open in the wintertime, I can tell the house that we have no difficulty in maintaining our harbour in operation throughout the year. We in this house and in all parts of Canada are concerned about the procrastination that takes place in the United States whenever the St. Lawrence waterway development is mentioned. Whenever the matter is brought before congress powerful interests seem able to scuttle the project. In a United States paper I noticed the following:
In Washington last week a daily program of government activities published by the United States chamber of commerce carried this eyebrow-lifting item:	"Monday. April 2, hearings of the St. Lawrence seaway to continue at least ten years." It should have said "days" but at week's end many capitol hill newsmen thought the typographical error might have been more factual than funny.
I am pleased that the Canadian government has already expressed its support of this project, and I hope that in the near future we will find that the better people in the United States are able to secure ratification of it by the United States congress. I know that this development will mean much to the people of both Canada and the United States.
Very briefly I should like to urge the government to take what action lies in their power to decentralize industry. We in Canada are fortunate in having a country of such wide extent. It makes it more difficult for an enemy to wipe out our defences, and it also makes it easier for us to defend our country. I have been worried by the fact that industry seems to crowd into some of the larger centres in Canada, particularly Toronto, Windsor and Montreal. I believe that this is unwise because we do not know what fifty years from now may bring. We cannot imagine how destructive and powerful the weapons of those days may turn out to be. Therefore I think it is very bad for industry to crowd into narrow sectors. I think this is one of the ways that we might respond to the appeal of members from the maritimes. If the government can encourage industry to move to the maritimes I think that would be a good thing to do. I am pleased at the fact that the government is already placing defence projects over wide areas in Canada.


I also believe that there are many small communities in Ontario which offer wonderful sites for the construction of such projects. I am thinking particularly of course of my own county of Northumberland where we have many wonderful sites, a high standard of labour and excellent transportation facilities, in fact all that any industry would wish in order to establish a plant. Not only would it have the advantage of benefiting industry itself, but it would also mean much to the people in the smaller communities. It would make unnecessary the removal of many of our young people from the smaller centres to the large cities as is the case under the present situation.
There is one other very important matter to which I should like to direct your attention. We hear much these days of our wonderful resources, of the richness of the fields, lands and mines. We believe that we are potentially richer than even the United States. They have depleted many of their precious minerals whereas ours have as yet hardly been scratched. We know that we have even more varied resources than the United States. In spite of this, Mr. Speaker, we are wilfully wasting one of our most precious resources. I speak of water. We know that the water level in many parts of Canada is becoming very low and thereby creating a serious situation. A study of the question has been made by the select committee on conservation of the Ontario legislature. They found some very informative facts from their observations. We know that one-half of the people of Ontario are dependent upon sub-surface water.
Farmers complain that their wells are going dry. In order to secure sufficient water supplies in some areas of Ontario we find that it is necessary to dig deep wells in order to obtain water. In doing that they are robbing adjoining farm wells of necessary water. This problem is not peculiar to Ontario. The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) spoke in the house the other night when he so ably brought to the attention of the government the need for the development of the South Saskatchewan river project. He told of how in past days this country, which should have been left for grazing, was put to other agricultural uses, and as a result people cannot live in that area today. I believe that this matter is also of concern to other parts of Canada. I have just learned today of the passing of the dear mother of the hon. member for Regina City, and I am sure that all hon. members would wish to extend to him their sincere sympathy in the loss of this dear one.
The cause of failing ground supplies of water is not hard to find. It means that we

have cleared too much land, that we have cleared swamps which should never have been cleared, and as a result these areas do not act as reservoirs for the storage of water. It is true that the drainage of some swamps has been of great agricultural benefit to the people of Ontario, but in other cases the drainage of swamps has served no useful purpose. What steps can we take to improve the situation? I believe we should have a planned program for increased reforestation. I believe that people should be taught more about this matter. I know that in the county of Northumberland wells which formerly were full of water all year now go dry in the summertime. That is true of many parts of Ontario.
Therefore we must educate our people as to what they can do to preserve the water supply in Ontario. I was pleased to see in the paper today that near Newmarket they are having discussions about how to conserve the water in the Holland river area. We can construct large reservoirs in the river valleys so that these areas will not only serve as a means of flood control but will also serve a very useful purpose so far as safeguarding our water supply is concerned. We should also construct dams on many of our smaller streams wherever that is deemed advisable. I believe the development of electricity in Ontario, and in fact in all parts of Canada, has had a bad effect on water levels. Hon. members will recall that some years ago, before the development of electricity, all our industries were situated on small streams near dams. They derived their power from the dammed-up water, and at the same time the holding back of the water served the very useful purpose of aiding our water supply. I would therefore urge the federal government, through the Department of Resources and Development, to take the lead in devising a useful program for the conservation of water wherever that is necessary. Conservation of our water supply and prevention of soil erosion are inseparable, and through a study of the water supply program much can be done to prevent soil erosion.
These are but a few of the problems confronting us in Canada today. There are many more that will require our wisdom, our confidence and our courage. But I believe that in Canada we have those resources, both material and in the quality of our people, and I have no fear for the future of this country.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, Liberal frontbenchers and nearfrontbenchers must grow tired of hearing their praises sung continually by Liberal backbenchers, so perhaps a little honest criticism
The Budget-Mr. Noseworthy for a change might prove somewhat refreshing. I have stated in this house on previous occasions that in my opinion this is no longer a Liberal government; that this government has been persistently departing from many of the basic principles of Liberalism, and is well on the way to establishing the reputation of being one of the most reactionary governments this country has seen for many years. The budget we are discussing at this time confirms that opinion. Through the centuries one of the basic principles of Liberalism as far as taxation is concerned has been that taxes should be levied according to the ability to pay. There was a time when Liberal governments observed that principle in their budgets, but it has been completely disregarded in the measures for raising additional taxes contained in the budget now before us. There is just no regard whatever, in the application of new taxes, to the principle of taxation according to ability to pay.
In the first place the sales tax is increased by 25 per cent right across the board. The small wage earner with a family to support, who notwithstanding the explanation given by the minister must spend anywhere up to 30 per cent of his income on clothing, home furnishings, drugs and a variety of other articles coming within the scope of the sales tax, will pay exactly the same rate of tax as the millionaire. Already in this debate it has been shown that this tax will not be a mere 10 per cent on the retail price of goods but in some cases will amount to as much as 20 or 30 per cent when wholesalers, jobbers and retailers have pyramided their mark-ups. In this increase in the sales tax there is just no recognition of the principle of taxation according to ability to pay. This tax can only drive the cost of living still higher, and will bear hardest on those least able to pay.
In the second place the new levy of 15 per cent on refrigerators, stoves and washing machines will bear particularly heavily on young couples just establishing themselves in homes of their own. The young couple going out to buy their first refrigerator will pay exactly the same rate of taxation as the millionaire who goes out to buy an extra refrigerator for his cellar. Again this tax will bear most severely on those in the lower income brackets. Particularly will that be so in the many cases where the wife has to go to work in order to supplement her husband's income, because she will need these labour saving devices in order to cope with her household duties and at the same time carry a full-time job. In many thousands of homes

The Budget-Mr. Noseworthy today the income of the husband is not sufficient to meet the high cost of living, and that income must of necessity be augmented by the wife's earnings.
In the third place the new surtax on personal income is applied right across the board on incomes of more than $1,000 for single people and $2,000 for married people. In the light of present living costs I suggest that if the minister had not disregarded the principle of taxation according to ability to pay he would have increased the exemptions, before imposing the surtax, to at least $1,500 and $3,000 for single and married people respectively. Had he wanted more taxes from this source, and had he kept ability to pay in mind, he would have increased the surtax in the higher brackets.
In contrast with the taxes I have mentioned we find the minister unduly solicitous of the welfare of corporations. In the first place the corporation tax is to be adjusted so it will not reduce the return on investment below 5 per cent. A new principle of placing a floor on returns from investments before taxation-


James Sinclair: After taxes.


Joseph William Noseworthy: -was introduced to safeguard corporation profits. In the second place the surtax is not to apply to corporations showing a profit of $10,000 or less. In the third place, while the sales tax is increased by 25 per cent, the surtax on corporations showing net profit of more than $10,000 is only 20 per cent. In the imposition of these new taxes the minister must have been following the injunction that "to him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away, even that which he hath." The fact of the matter is that government policy as revealed in this budget shows much more concern for the welfare of corporations than for the rank and file of Canadian citizens. In this budget the voice is the voice of the St. James streets of Canada, and not the voice of the ordinary small James streets of the country.
Among other things the amendment of the official opposition regrets the failure of the government to take effective steps to deal with profiteering. Certainly the official opposition and others on this side are not the only ones in Canada who believe there is profiteering at this time which should be curbed. The most recent Gallup poll, published in the Montreal Star of April 14, asked this question: "Do you think there is much profiteering, that is unfair profitmaking, going on in Canada now?" The vote was yes, 75 per cent, and no, 13 per cent. Among the occupational groups, business and
[Mr. Noseworthy. 1
professional men voted 65 per cent yes, and 23 per cent no. The white-collar class voted 75 per cent yes, and only 14 per cent no. Labour voted 79 per cent yes, and only 9 per cent no. Farmers voted 80 per cent yes, and 9 per cent no. The difference between those percentages and 100 per cent represents those who were undecided. The most interesting feature of this Gallup poll is that of those who would vote C.C.F., 85 per cent thought there was profiteering taking place in Canada today, and among those who would vote for the two private enterprise parties, either Liberals or Conservatives, there were 75 per cent who thought there was profiteering taking place. Whether the government believes there is profiteering or not, whether the government believes that some effective measures should be taken to curb profiteering, those of us in the opposition have a great deal of support throughout the country for the belief that there is profiteering.
Surely if the minister had any intention of dealing effectively with profiteering, he would have imposed a more steeply graded corporation tax. In fact many of us believe that a greater degree of equality of sacrifice in the defence effort would be achieved by the imposition of an excess profits tax. The present Minister of Finance speaks with considerable disdain of such a tax. He uses as his argument that such a tax leads to waste and extravagance in production. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that is very complimentary to industry in this country. This argument was not used by the government against the excess profits tax during the years of the last war, nor did the tax appear to impede production. During those years the industrialists of Canada gave us the greatest increase in production in our history, notwithstanding the excess profits taxes collected by the government. Let me remind the minister, who apparently had some difficulty in finding ways and means of raising an extra $300 million or $400 million, that since 1941 the government has collected the following amounts in excess profits taxes: 1941-42, $135,168,000-I am giving the figure in fairly round numbers

in 1942-43, $454,581,000;	1943-44,	$468,718,000;	1944-45,
$465,805,000; 1945-46, $494,196,000; 1946-47, $448,698,000; and in 1947-48, although the tax came off in December, 1947 the government collected $227,030,000. The total during those years amounted to $2,694,196,000. I notice, incidentally, that although the excess profits tax was repealed in December, 1947, the government is still collecting back debts on account of excess profits taxes. In the table given on page 64 of the appendix to Hansard of April 10 of this year, it is

estimated that in the fiscal year 1950-51 the government will collect another $10 million on account of excess profits taxes. For five consecutive years the government collected each year between $400 million and $500 million of excess profits taxes.
In those years the minister of finance did not speak with disdain of this tax as does the present minister. In fact, the present Minister of Finance took a very different attitude towards this tax in 1947 to that which he takes today. When in April, 1947, he was being pressed by the official opposition to repeal the excess profits tax, the minister said, as recorded at page 2558 of Hansard for April 29, 1947:
If business conditions had now returned to normal and we could rely upon the forces of competition and bargaining to keep profits at normal levels, we would be justified in repealing this tax . . .
Then again, in the same paragraph:
If business needed larger profits to encourage and enable it to provide additional employment by greater expenditures, we should repeal the tax forthwith.
Then he went on to say that neither of those conditions existed at that time. The minister then thought profits were still running at abnormally high levels. He said that businessmen were competing more in their efforts to expand their investments quickly than in getting down their costs and keeping down the prices at which they sell their products. In April, 1947, the minister said profits were abnormally high. In that year, 1947, according to a table published in the Montreal Gazette on April 14, 1951, one hundred companies whose fiscal years coincide with the calendar year showed net profits after all charges including taxes had been paid of $338,451,000. According to the same table, these same companies in 1950 showed net profits of $475,255,000, an increase over 1947 of 35 per cent. In other words, these same 100 companies showed 35 per cent more profit in 1950 than they showed in 1947, when the present Minister of Finance told us that profits were still abnormally high and therefore merited the continuation of the excess profits tax. If profits were abnormally high in 1947, surely they were still abnormally high in 1950. In fact, in introducing his deferred depreciation policy, the minister implied that he expected profits to remain abnormally high in 1951 and for some years thereafter.
Again, if business did not need larger profits to make capital investments in order, in turn, to provide more employment in 1947, the same thing holds true in 1951. If as the minister stated in April, 1947, business was then more concerned with making profits than in keeping down the prices of goods, surely that situation also holds true for today.
The Budget-Mr. Noseworthy Indeed, every reason the minister gave in April 1947 for retaining the excess profits tax has much greater force today than it had in 1947. Yet the government shies away from an excess profits tax and prefers instead an increased sales tax on clothing, house furnishings, et cetera, and an excise tax on stoves, refrigerators and washing machines. Instead of an excess profits tax or a more steeply-graded corporation tax, the minister prefers to levy a flat surtax on the incomes of all those whose incomes exceed $1,000 and $2,000. The budget we have before us is far from recognizing the principle of taxation according to ability to pay. In fact, this budget might well be termed a profiteers' budget.
Another feature of the budget, taken in conjunction with this government's fiscal policy, is its effect upon the home and the family. Most of us in this house recognize that the home and the family are two institutions that constitute the bulwark of our way of life. Instead of contributing to tne building of home and family life this government, in my opinion, is persistently following a policy that militates against these institutions. Consider the situation of a young couple today who wish to marry, to buy or to build a home and to raise a family. What assistance or encouragement for following that laudable course is to be found in this budget or in this government's general attitude toward rising prices?
In the first place, the price of every single necessity which that couple must buy to live is today higher than ever before in our history. If those young people look around for a house, they find that the down payment has recently been "upped" by government policy until it is now beyond the capacity of the young couple to meet it. If they are fortunate enough to secure an unfurnished house or apartment for rent, the minister's new tax on stoves and refrigerators has made the purchase of those necessary articles far more difficult. If they turn to instalment buying they find that the down payment has been increased and that the time for paying the balance has been shortened. Their clothing, house furnishings, drugs and numerous other articles have increased in price by reason of the increased sales tax. Their personal income will be further reduced by a surtax.
Just how does the government expect Canadians to become home owners and to raise families under those conditions? At a time when we are spending millions oi dollars on defence to protect ourselves from an enemy who would destroy our way of life, our government, by failing to check

The Budget-Mr. Noseworthy inflation, and by making it increasingly difficult for young Canadians to marry, to acquire homes and to raise families, is undermining at home the very foundation of that way of life that we seek to save from destruction by external enemies.
There is another feature of inflation that has not yet been mentioned in this debate. In addition to the high price that every Canadian citizen must pay for the commodities he buys, every municipal taxpayer this fall will find that his tax bill is increased because of the increased cost of living and because of inflation. The municipality which I represent just last week increased its mill rate by twenty mills. That increase was rendered necessary because of the higher wages and salaries the municipality was called upon to pay to its employees and the increased costs of all the materials that the municipality had to buy in order to service it. Taxpayers and home owners all across Canada, in their municipal tax bills, are finding repercussions of inflation. Those increased taxes have to be charged up to inflation. Unfortunately, municipal governments are not in the happy position of the federal government and the Minister of Finance. From the minister's speech when he introduced his budget and when he announced his surplus of approximately $200 million, one would almost gather that the minister was not particularly disturbed about inflation. Inflation certainly makes it easier to balance budgets and to provide surpluses. I think it is readily admitted that that surplus was directly due to the increased costs, the rise in prices, and with that the rise in profits and the rise in the minister's taxes. Municipal officers are not in that happy position. When they find it necessary to increase the salaries and wages of municipal employees, when they find it necessary to pay more for the goods they buy, they have no recourse but to increase taxes on the home owner, which is one more tax making it still more difficult to maintain homes in this country.
The government's policy on inflation was apparently set forth by the Minister of Finance in his broadcast as reported in the Montreal Gazette of April 18. It says:
Though rationing, price control and wage freezing were useful instruments during the last war, when almost half of our national output was devoted to war, they are not appropriate measures at the present stage when only some 10 per cent is being devoted to defence needs.
Apparently there is no relation between the rising cost of living and the need for those controls. The need for those controls is to be determined, according to government policy, strictly on the basis of the percentage of our

national income that is going into national defence; regardless of the effect of rising prices on the people of this country, no measures will be taken on that ground by this government.
The minister went on to say:
Existing controls on essential materials and the various programs we are following, designed to increase the total savings of the community, should enable us to come through.
We should certainly appreciate hearing from the minister, or from some government speaker, a more detailed account of just what these measures are which are designed to increase the total savings of the community. The only one that I can observe is the possibility of the minister having another $200 million or $300 million surplus at the end of the next fiscal year. I presume that could be considered as community savings. The higher down payments on houses, the higher taxes on stoves, refrigerators and washing machines, the surtax on income, the increased sales tax will probably force many people to buy fewer of the things that they absolutely need; but I fail to see where these measures are likely to increase, in the words of the minister, the total savings of the community.
The government's policy apparently is influenced by that of the United States. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) intimated to us the other night that we were waiting to see how these controls work out in the United States. I notice that in his broadcast the minister has a slight change in the phrasing that he used. Heretofore in this house we have been speaking of price control and wage control. I do not know that we have been particularly considering wage freezing, but the minister speaks of rationing, price control and wage freezing, which, in effect, is exactly the position in regard to controls in the United States.
In its special inflation issue of Sunday, April 1, the New York Times has this to say regarding controls:
The present pattern of controls to deal with the inflationary threat is mixed-soft here, hard there. This is the picture:
As to prices, the controls are on the whole soft.
As to wages, the controls are on the whole hard. A general freeze was imposed on January 26.
As to credit, the controls are on the whole soft.
It is quite evident that the minister, in speaking of price control and wage freezing, is adopting the principle underlying these controls in the United States, and one which the Minister of Trade and Commerce assured us the government is watching very closely before embarking upon any such policy in this country.
I would simply close, Mr. Speaker, in asking just what mandate this government

has for following the example of the United States in a matter so closely affecting the economy and the life of this country as does the cost of living? Since when did this country give any government a mandate to shun matters that were of national importance just because they were difficult? Many of the arguments that we have heard against price control from the government side of the house were simply enumerations of the difficulties that stand in the way of price control. What is true, I submit, Mr. Speaker, is that this government, secure in its overwhelming majority, secure in the fact that there is no immediate general election in the offing, can afford, or thinks it can afford, to ignore the opinion of 75 per cent of the people of this country, to ignore the demands of practically every organized group except possibly chambers of commerce, and carry on without price control. In closing I submit that were this an election year this government would not dare face the people of this country on the policy that they are pursuing at this time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be representing the constituency of Fort William in this debate, and in doing so I must express some of the things that have been told to me during the past week or so. Before doing that I should like to pay a tribute to my comrade, friend and good fellow worker here, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. May-bank). We were every-day friends and companions and he did a lot with his sane, common-sense judicial advice to keep me out of difficulties into which I had the knack of getting.
I cannot forget the first time I visited him when I came down here in 1935. You know what new members think of the House of Commons. They think that the men who come down here love money above everything else, but they soon get that knocked out of their heads. When I paid my first call on the hon. member I found him reading Dr. Smith's commentary on "The Minor Prophets". This was the lawyer from Winnipeg, the former alderman and member of the provincial legislature reading "The Minor Prophets" under the leadership of Dr. Smith.
I looked at him and I suppose I showed some surprise because he said, "What is the matter?" I said, "I am agreeably surprised
The Budget-Mr. Mclvor but I know you will get there just the thing you need for anything in life. From Amos you will get the idea of justice and how to dispense it. From Hosea you will get the meaning of real love and the source from which it comes. From Daniel the prophet you will get the way of courage and strength to meet any lion you may meet on the way." The hon. member was independent, but he had a judicial mind. He was kind and courteous and, like myself, enjoyed a good clean joke. I never heard a joke from him that I could not repeat to my grandchildren.
Coming to the budget, may I say that I think that it is a great budget. Like many great things, there are things in it that need to be improved. That shows it is a budget of growth. Some people in Fort William during the past weeks have objected to every tax there is. Nobody likes to pay taxes. I do not like to pay taxes. The only way I like to pay them is when I can pay them without knowing, but I do not like it when I have to hand out ready cash because it is difficult to hold on to cash.
I have five letters objecting vigorously to those hidden taxes and to the idea that the British North America Act be amended to allow the provinces to impose a three per cent retail tax. These letters are all from Fort William and I shall give the names of the writers because I do not think they have any business writing me unless they want to back up what they say and let their names appear on Hansard. These men are all businessmen and they say that the small businessman will be put out of business. One letter is from a man who has lost both legs. He is well known in Fort William and he says that he cannot carry on. I have letters from Gerry Hardware, Strachan Jewelry store, Mahon Electric and Clemens grocery. These are all outstanding businessmen and they object vigorously to these taxes. I hope it is not too late for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to change his mind.
Another matter to which there is objection is the change in the postal procedure in order to save money. I do not think the postage on books should be increased. Our public library sends books out to people in the country who are not able to enjoy the modern conveniences we have. Some of these people have battery radios which have the knack of running down, but when they get one or half a dozen books from the library it is a great treat to them. I think the government would be well advised to go back to the former rate and allow these people out in the country to enjoy their reading.
I must say that I do not have one objection to the taxes on cigarettes and tobacco. The

The Budget-Mr. Mclvor hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank) objected, not to the tax on cigarettes but to there being no tax on liquor. Another man writes to me and says that the post office should attempt to increase their revenues in some other manner. I suggest to the minister that he limit our franking privileges to letters only, and not have it cover the magazines we send out. If we had to pay for the magazines we send out we would be more careful what we sent. I do not know how many hon. members will agree with me on that. If we say that the revenue should be raised then let us impose the taxes some other place because we are told in the budget that the Minister of Finance has to raise certain taxes. Where is he going to get them? The budget is his plan to raise them, and if some of these taxes are to be cancelled let us put others in their place. Another man said to me: Reduce the tax on utilities of the home and impose an extra tax on beer and liquor.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) agrees with that. I noticed when the Minister of Finance announced that there would be no tax on liquor a groan went up all across that side of the house and from some on this side. Why not tax liquor if you are taxing everything else? If the people of Canada could spend $633 million on liquor in 1949, and more in 1950, if the people of Canada could spend $300 million on cigarettes, then the people who are doing these things can afford to pay taxes. I must say that I am not objecting to the tax on cigarettes because when a man buys a cigarette it goes up in smoke anyway.


Mr. Slick:: You do not pay it anyway.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Therefore I think it was a very wise tax. During the past few months I have noticed in our cafeteria, which is the hub of the House of Commons, that some people are cutting down on their cigarettes because they are beginning to see the harm they do.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the way he is pushing forward old age pensions. I think I am right in saying, and if not I will say it anyway because I think if it is not so it ought to be, that the old age pension should be given as of right at age seventy with no means test, and from sixty-five to sixty-nine to those who need it. I think that is a splendid step in the right direction but we want to make sure of it because there are those who need it.


An hon. Member:: They will be dead before they get it.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Before any increase is made in the amount of $40 a month paid to old age pensioners 1 would say that every cripple in Canada, every man who has to use a wheel chair and is not able to get around, should be paid1 $40 a month. Of course, Mr. Speaker, a little drink does not hurt. I have been interested in athletics all my life and still am, but there are certain things in the athletic world that give me some concern. I was told by a lawyer from Port Arthur that one of the greatest combines we have in Canada is the national hockey league. Boys of sixteen years of age are infatuated with hockey. They play a good game, have plenty of speed and can find the goal. A scout comes along and such a boy signs something. Afterwards he may want to change his mind. Perhaps his dad has talked to him, the man who is coaching him, or his mother has had something to say about it. Nevertheless the big magnate says to him: You will play for us or you will not play at all. To my mind that is one of the worst combines in Canada, and I support what this lawyer said.
I am a bit concerned about our game of hockey. If it continues to be so destructive to our good athletes by way of injuries, I am afraid that our national game of hockey is going to go the way of our national game of lacrosse.


Gordon Graydon: I rise on a question of privilege. The game of lacrosse is not dead. It is flourishing in our part of the country as it has never flourished before.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Of course, Mr. Speaker, my hearing is not good, but the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has a good deal of common sense although I do not think he has any more experience than I have, and I am talking from that source now. What I should like to say now, and the hon. member for Peel will support me in this, is that members of the House of Commons are often allowed to go on trips. They are invited to banquets, and somebody comes back into the house and thanks the sponsor of the trip. I think it is most commendable, and the more trips of that kind we have the more we will know our country. However, I should like to say to members of the house: Give our page boys a trip after the session is over. If you will give me permission, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to collect a dollar apiece from the members to give the page boys a real holiday. I do not see anybody clapping.


Gordon Graydon: It is not enough.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The way we can help our tax situation and the Minister of Finance is by the development of our natural resources. I have noticed that nickel is now being rationed. In our district we have perhaps

one of the greatest sources of nickel in Canada. The International Nickel Company-bought up all the claims that looked good but that is all that happened. We think that the International Nickel Company should develop those claims and produce more nickel. In the Shebandowan area we have many claims with high assays of gold and silver. Now the people from south of the line are asking us to send them samples of iron. The only difficulty is that it has a little bit too much silica but when they get the machinery ready that can separate the silica from the iron we are going to have a real industry in that district. It is one of the finest districts in Canada and runs all the way from Shebandowan up to Steep Rock.
I know that the budget will be hard on those who like to spend their own money. An increase of 20 per cent in income tax is pretty heavy but, as I said before, we have asked our minister to raise these taxes, and I think that is one of the most popular sources from which to get the money. We must raise these taxes. The other reason that we have for supporting the budget is that there may be something in it that will help to stop inflation.
I should like to say a word about Korea. It is dangerous for an Irishman to take sides but I should like to pay my tribute to President Truman for his courage. He was in a terrible corner, showed his courage, and I admire him for it. I also admire General MacArthur as an outstanding soldier and perhaps a part statesman.


Gordon Graydon: Go on, give him a clap.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I have just received a note and it indicates to me the greatness of this House of Commons. It says that the Maple Leafs are going to win the Stanley cup. I did not know there were such outstanding prophets in this house. They may be wrong this time. Both President Truman _ and General MacArthur are outstanding citizens. I think the best thing for us to do is to let them fight their own battles. I think you will find before the battle is over these two men will come together. Just as one hon. member said today, we do not stand for any appeasement. I think of some of the letters I have received during the last three weeks from communist people who say they want peace. I have answered each of those letters, and have said they should put at the top of their program the abolition of the iron curtain. They should let the workers of Russia see what is going on in the outside world, as they cannot see now, and let the workers outside see what is going on in Russia; then there will be more chance of their coming together. But I repeat that I
The Budget-Mr. Pearkes am not a bit afraid of Russia or China, because sooner or later any country that treats God as a myth will go to the bowwows.
I want to mention just two other matters. In Fort William we have difficulties in connection with floods. For certain reasons the river there is flooding more extensively every year. I must pay my tribute to the deputy minister of public works, whom I interviewed today; and I was pretty stiff about it. He gave me every encouragement that the dominion government would do the fair thing by the province and the city. I did not bother the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), but I am sure he will be even more generous.
Fort William has been very pleased with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). During the past summer he said that if the St. Lawrence waterway was not developed in co-operation with the United States, Canada would go ahead and do it herself. That might be a splendid stimulant to wake up the people of the United States. I think it would be a great thing for the world if this development could be accomplished, and I can assure the minister he will get every co-operation from us.
I should like to speak for an hour, Mr. Speaker, but I know it is not the men who speak longest who say the most. As a boy I chose Canada as the land of my adoption, and I have never been sorry. It is the greatest country on earth. We could boast about the things we have. We have the greatest wheat fields on earth, the longest railway in the world, the best machinery for handling wheat. We also have the best young men and maidens the world knows, as they have proved in the past. When we think of Canada there is music in the name. We feel like the Irishman who said the real patriot was the man who was loyal to his native land, whether or not he was born there. We are loyal to Canada because we believe it is the land of the free, a place where we can grow and develop and train our children according to the way we have been led. We will lead them Godward, and Canada toward the eternal kingdom.


Mr, G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: It is always a pleasure to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). He says many things with which invariably I can agree. Like the hon. member I do not smoke cigarettes, but unlike him I do enjoy my little toddy. It was with a little disappointment I noticed that when the hon. member was passing around his numerous bouquets, and particularly when he was referring to the great game of hockey, he
2194	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Pearkes overlooked the fact that there is a team from a little town called Nanaimo, where the most westerly of all hockey rinks in Canada is located. The team travelled all the way from the other side of British Columbia to northwestern Ontario to play Fort Frances in the Allan cup playdowns; and the series is tied at one game each. I know Fort Frances is not in my hon. friend's constituency, but it is very close to it; and I was a little disappointed that he did not hand a bouquet to that hockey team from far off. However, I must say that the Fort Frances team played an exceedingly good game and the Nanaimo team learned much from them.
I feel that many advantages arise from the fact that we have an Easter recess which enables hon. members to visit their constituencies and obtain the opinions of their people in regard to what is being done in this parliament. I believe the advantage is greater the further the constituency is from this capital city. I took advantage of the recess to visit my constituency on Vancouver island, and in moving around among the people I found their interest was focused on the then and still rising cost of living and the inflationary trends prevalent in British Columbia. When the budget was brought down I think the first reaction was that the increased taxation was not as heavy as had been expected. There was a general feeling that taxes would be much heavier than appeared to be the case on a first reading of the budget. But the more one studied the budget resolutions the more one felt a haunting fear that the steps being taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) would not achieve the result for which the people on the back concessions were hoping, namely that these inflationary trends would be halted and the cost of living brought down. Of course it is still too early to say positively that the budget will not have that result. The minister has told us that this is his intention, and I am sure the people hope his intentions will be fulfilled.
The people of British Columbia were expecting some form of controls on various commodities. Few would have wanted the full, burdensome and detailed control system administered by the wartime prices and trade board during the war, but all expected some more flexible and perhaps more temporary plans which would have relieved the hardships being experienced by those living on fixed incomes. On Vancouver island there are a large number of retired people. A very high percentage, as compared with other parts of this dominion, are people who have moved to the more temperate climate of 


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians from ocean to ocean

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore
Third, the effecting of such change as rapidly as may be possible, having in mind the peace, order and good government of Canada?
Will the minister give careful consideration to the advisability of setting up a Canadian currency and credit commission and of charging it with the responsibility: First, of setting up a national account book; second, of issuing debt-free or interest-free money, whether currency or credit or both, and providing for its use in such amounts and in such ways as will in the most effective manner stimulate Canadian production and consumption to the optimum, consonant with Canada's resources, material and human, and thereby providing for a steady and rapid growth of general prosperity and strength in Canada?
We come now to the matter of inflation, its nature, cause, cure and prevention. If the minister is told by some person that the creation, issue and use of debt-free money by the government will mean or cause inflation, would the minister point out to that person:
1.	That the word inflation in respect of money matters is used with three main meanings. First, any increase in the amount of money in '^circulation; second, any undue increase in such amount of money; third, any increase in the amount or ratio of money in circulation which causes or is accompanied by rise of prices; and that lately inflation has come to mean any increase of the price level regardless of the factor or factors causing that rise?
2.	That the creation, issue and use of presently employed debt-money will mean or can cause inflation in accordance with all four meanings of the word inflation, just as definitely as ever could the creation, issue and use of debt-free money?
3.	That as regards their inflationary or non-inflationary effect upon an economy, the main essential difference between debt-money and debt-free money would arise from the fact: First, that debt-money theoretically would necessarily have to be withdrawn from circulation and cancelled out of existence upon repayment of the loan or debt, the taking of or the contraction of which brought such debt-money into existence? And that this fact, making the money in circulation depend upon the whims of hundreds of bankers and other lenders in the matter of granting or refusing to grant loans, and upon the whims of tens of thousands of borrowers in the matter, of borrowing or failing to borrow, renders government control of the amount of debt-money in circulation an almost impossible task?
[Mr. Blackmore.l
Second, while debt-free money would not necessarily have to be withdrawn from circulation because it was not brought into existence through a loan or debt, yet such debt-free money in so far as withdrawal of it would be desirable, would be naturally withdrawn by offsetting, counteracting or cancelling out the debts, resulting from such factors as interest, profit, savings, taxation, alternating depressions and booms, alternating periods of bankers' willingness and unwillingness to lend money, fluctuations of price and other fluctuations, etc. or could be withdrawn at will by appropriate taxation?
And that this fact, making the amount of money in circulation depend not entirely upon whims of lenders or borrowers but in considerable measure upon the spending policy of the currency and credit commission acting from only one motive, namely, the maintenance of Canadian prosperity, renders government control of the amount of debt-free and debt-money in circulation a much more manageable task?
4.	Will he tell the person speaking that the inflation men fear, therefore, is not an inflation arising necessarily from increase in the quantity of money, but is a rise in price due to any factor or factors?
5.	That in case of increase of either debt or debt-free money in circulation unless there is a rise in price, there is no real inflation and can be no real inflation?
6.	That the rise of price called inflation is primarily the result of having too few goods and services available in markets to match the purchasing power in the hands of would-be buyers of such goods?
7.	That therefore if goods are scarce enough, prices will rise whether or not money either debt money or debt-free money is plentiful in the hands of would-be buyers?
8.	That if goods are adequate enough, prices need not rise, whether or not money is plentiful in the hands of would-be buyers?
9.	That the safeguards against inflation, therefore, are, first, abundant production of the widest variety of goods within the nation concerned; second, maintenance of price regulation by inducement through employment of subsidies to producers and consumers aiming at a price structure fair and stable; third, measures to ensure equitable distribution during temporary shortage of any commodity or commodities; fourth, sufficient import of goods to make up for any deficiency of goods resulting from exports?
And if the minister is told by some person that the new government-created money would fall into the hands of the chartered banks and might be used by them as reserves

upon which to make loans ten times greater in amount than the total of that new money in their possession, thereby causing a boom and an inflation, will the minister point out to that person:
First, that if the Bank of Canada really possesses the power to control Canada's currency and credit, which that bank is believed to have, then the Bank of Canada will be able to restrain excessive loaning tendencies on the part of chartered banks? Second, that if necessary, for the sake of controlling their credit expansion activities, the chartered banks' cash reserve requirements can be increased to whatever percentage of loans may be found necessary; even to 100 per cent?
Third, that if need arose, it ought to be logical to put a ceiling upon the amount of credit to be issued by chartered banks at any given time, and so to prevent them from expanding credit beyond the safety limit?
Fourth, that if bankers choose to disregard government policy in spite of the moderate measures referred to as first, second and third then the government could consider the acquisition itself of the Chartered banks? But that this would never be necessary provided bankers fittingly recognized their vital responsibilities to their country, appreciating appropriately their position as essential parts of the productive mechanism of the nation's economy?
Fifth, that if production in sufficient abundance be brought about and maintained, cause for fear of inflationary rise of prices of goods will be greatly diminished?
Sixth, that if, in addition to maintaining abundant supply of goods, the government continue to employ a system of discounts and subsidies of prices to maintain just prices for both producers and consumers, then cause for fear of inflationary rise in prices will be reduced to an almost negligible minimum?
Finally, seventh, if any commodity found to be in short supply be distributed equitably as long as it continues to be scarce, then cause of inflationary rise of prices will be practically eliminated?
As to the means of democratic control of debt-free money:	If the minister is told by
some person that if the government were to begin to create and spend debt-free money then the government would become fascist because it would have money independently of loaning agencies and independently of parliament, that with such money the government would be able to keep itself in power indefinitely-if this sort of reasoning be 80709-141
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore used with the minister, will the minister point out to that person:
1.	That the currency and credit commission would be required to submit at the end of each accounting period not less frequently than once every three months a most exactingly detailed and comprehensive report to parliament through the Minister of Finance showing:
(a)	the actual capacity of the nation's means of production during each of the months of the year being reported, specifying the percentage of capital goods and the percentage of consumers' goods;
(b)	the percentage of that capacity being actually used in each of those months;
(c)	the amount of the production of each month being purchased and consumed with the money in circulation;
(d)	the amount of money in circulation going into the hands of the consumers throughout the nation each month;
(e)	the estimated actual physical demand for each kind of goods being sent into the markets throughout the nation;
(f)	the effective demand for each kind of goods being sent into the markets;
(g)	the actual amount of each kind of goods not being consumed for the apparent lack of consumers' money with which to buy;
(h)	the consequent estimated amount of new state-created debt-free money that would be required at the end of each accounting period to be voted by parliament, issued by the state and put into consumers' hands, whether through dividends to all or through price subsidies, wage bonuses, pensions, grants and other sound economic measures as may be deemed best to enable the consumers of Canada to consume the optimum amount of the production of Canada, or goods received by Canada through external trade therewith;
(i)	the exact amount of state-created, debt-free money issued by the state and so spent into circulation, together with a detailed breakdown showing the amounts spent into circulation through each of the sound economic measures referred to in the next preceding clause?
2.	That because of the detailed reports mentioned in (1), parliament will be able to have under effective supervision the creation, issue and use of every dollar of state-created, debt-free money?
3.	That the estimated amount of state-created, debt-free money likely to be made available for the nation's use in the following year would be printed in the estimates each year, together with the amount of such money

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore rendered available during the current year and the year previous, as well as the use to which it will be, or has been, put?
4.	That the Minister of Finance would be required in debate on the estimates to be ready to justify every item of government procedure in respect of the state-created, debt-free money issued and employed?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that members of this house and the people of the country generally should learn to answer exactly each of these questions submitted. I have had to read them rapidly but if they go into the details, as members will be able to in Hansard, they can answer each and every one of them. We will have an end to all the nonsensical talk in this country about money. There will not be a whole lot of silly talking about Social Credit. There will be a whole lot more light thrown into the darkness in which the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) gropes.
Now we come to the importance of a financial system and the need of change. In the minister's opinion does the Canadian economy exist for the Canadian financial system, or does the Canadian financial system exist for the Canadian economy?


An hon. Member:: Answer that.


John Horne Blackmore: Again, what ought the Canadian financial system to accomplish for the Canadian economy? (1) Is it to enable and stimulate production of goods? (2) Is it to enable and stimulate the consumption of goods? (3) Is it to enable and stimulate the liquidation of debt by payment in full?
If it be found that production of goods in Canada be less than the optimum-as it is now-considering physical resources, might Canadians be justified in looking for the fault into their financial system?
Again, if it be found that consumption of goods in Canada be less than the optimum- as it is now-considering physical resources, might Canadians be justified in looking for the fault into their financial system?
The question should be asked:	Is the
Canadian financial system measuring up? Is it worthy of all the worship which our Conservative and Liberal friends so abjectly render to it? Let me ask this question. In the main over the past twenty years has the Canadian financial system brought about optimum production of goods and services in Canada? If not, what would the minister suggest as the causes for the failure? Again, in the main over the past twenty years has the Canadian financial system brought about optimum consumption of goods and services in Canada? If not, what

would the minister suggest as the causes for the failure?


An hon. Member:: Answer that.


John Horne Blackmore: The Budget-Mr. Blackmore of such goods in so far as the physical resources of Canada render possible such optimum consumption?
If so, why?
Wnat measures are available to the minister for use as effective means of getting into the hands of Canadian producers enough money to produce as indicated above?
Give detailed answer:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
What reasons has the minister for believing that these measures would be efficacious in case of:
An overproduction of goods in Canada, bearing in mind that, in a depression, banks hesitate to lend for production, while in times of overproduction producers hesitate to borrow?
What measures are available to the minister for use as effective means of getting into the hands of Canadian consumers enough money to enable them to consume as indicated above? Give detailed answer:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Does the minister believe that the finance department has the responsibility of controlling the issue of currency and credit in Canada?
If not, what department or departments or agencies of the Canadian government has or have that responsibility?
Has the finance department the power to control the issue of currency and credit in Canada?
(1)	If not, why not?
(2)	And if not, what department or departments or agencies of the government has or have that power?
Does the minister believe that the control of the issue of currency and credit is the biggest and most important public utility in the economic activities of the Dominion of Canada?
Does the minister believe that control of the issue of currency and credit in Canada means, in effect, control of the whole national life of Canada?
(a)	If not, why not?
(b)	And if not, then in what respects? fMr. Blackmore.l
(c)	Would the minister concur in the
opinion expressed in the statement: "Money
is the bloodstream of the national economy"?
I have taken considerable pains to draft these questions, Mr. Speaker. I present them to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), the deputy minister of finance and all the members of the finance department, and I ask that those questions be answered during this session of parliament. I submit the same questions to all hon. members of the House of Commons in all parties. Just as soon as anyone, from the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) right on down, thinks he can answer those questions in such a way as to prove that this country cannot have money other than what is stolen from the people by taxation, he will be welcome to demonstrate his position.


Gordon Graydon: When do we try the
examinations?


John Horne Blackmore: I shall be right here to check you up. I conclude with the earnest and sincere contention that if we will study the financial system of Canada with a desire to find, a way out of the difficulties Which surround us, we shall find that way; and we shall find it in no other manner.


Mr. Raymond Bruneau (Prescott):: Mr. Speaker, discussion of the budget and its various provisions and implications may well be regarded as a general survey of the national economy and an examination of the state of the country. Speeches delivered so far by almost all opposition members have revealed a definite pattern, that pattern taking the form of a concerted attack on the budget. The criticisms have been notable for their lack of constructive suggestions. A dispassionate onlooker would gather the impression that the main purpose of the critics is to tear down the budgetary structure rather than consolidate its foundations. Parliament, composed as it is of representatives of all parties, both government and opposition members, is presumed to be the mirror of the nation. Keeping this thought in mind, one may well inquire at this stage, what substantial segment of the country do the criticisms voiced so far represent? It is extremely difficult to reconcile these criticisms with the seemingly general acceptance of the budget by the country at large.
Some suggestions have been made as to the taxation measures that should be discarded and the fiscal policies that should be made effective to provide the necessary revenues for the management of the country's affairs. Too many criticisms have been notable for their lack of realism and objectivity.

Canada's taxation structure is at best a delicate fabric. It must be designed to establish a proper balance between the national economy and the economy of the ten provinces constituting the dominion. An ill-conceived national taxation policy can, by reason of its implications and repercussions, so operate as to deprive the provinces of essential revenues. Overly heavy taxation of spirituous liquors is a case in point.
No government, federal or provincial, relishes the task of increasing the burden of taxation. But there are times when a state of national or near national emergency leaves no other course open to the government. Such a situation now confronts the government of Canada. My deeply respected and able leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), recently expressed his views in this respect when addressing a group of students of the Hawkesbury high school who visited the parliament buildings. He emphasized that national necessity imposed on the government unpleasant duties, such as the levying of taxes to provide revenues for the purchase of death-dealing armaments and the waging of war against the forces whose sole aim is the destruction of our civilization and all that it implies in the realm of human rights and fundamental liberties. The action which the government has taken on behalf of the people of Canada is actuated by but one desire, the determination to prevent occurrences such as the rape of Korea and the further enslavement of the free peoples of the world.
A nation is no stronger than the sum total of its individual strength. In this time of crisis, the people living in the 262 ridings that make up the dominion must so integrate their efforts as to give the fullest support to the government in the pursuit of its main policy, that of strengthening the country from within and helping friendly and still free nations meet the threat of the common enemy, Soviet Russia and its satellites.
My constituency, Prescott county, is in the happy position of being able to make a not inconsequential contribution to the national effort. But Prescott county's contribution is conditioned on co-operation. During the second world war my riding, where the topography of the land is admirably suited for aviation purposes, had the benefit of two airfields, one situated at Pendleton and the other at St. Eugene. These two airfields, which played an important part in the expansion and full development of the eminently successful commonwealth air training plan, have been virtually unused since 1945. A moderate outlay would be sufficient to ensure their rehabilitation and utilization. Hawkes-
The Budget-Mr. Bruneau bury has a flying club which has been in existence for several years now. The unflagging enthusiasm of its members has ensured its successful operation in spite of many handicaps, among others the lack of finances. The preliminary training of fliers under the direction of flying clubs like the one operating on the outskirts of Hawkesbury is directly associated with the broad pattern of national defence. Young aviation enthusiasts learn the fundamentals of flying at these clubs. The theoretical and practical knowledge of flying acquired at these clubs constitutes an important preliminary step in any national air training plan. Bearing in mind the over-all cost of training each flier, the national budget is relieved of a portion of the financial burden the complete air training course entails. I have been urging for some time now the installation of a beacon at the airfield of the Hawkesbury flying club. Such a beacon would be of great help to the flying enthusiasts who, by reason of their employment, can only engage in night flying. The benefits to be derived from the installation of a beacon are so obvious that I need not labour the point. The very small outlay required would pay dividends to this country.
I should like to stress another factor that ties in closely with the national defence program. I have in mind the decentralization of industry. Economic and strategic reasons make such a decentralization increasingly imperative. Decentralization relieves transportation congestion in heavily populated areas and facilitates the quick movement of traffic both in times of peace and war. New methods of warfare centred around the use of the atomic bomb and its more lethal companion, the hydrogen bomb, are undoubtedly the most compelling reason for the decentralization of industry. Prescott county, situated as it is midway between Ottawa and Montreal, is splendidly located to meet the needs of decentralization. There is ample power for the operation of almost any type of industry, and the county is well endowed with rail and highway transportation facilities.
The full development of Canada's agricultural possibilities is another paramount consideration. This country is most fortunate in that there is a fairly happy balance between its agriculture and its industry. We are well aware of the outstanding part Canada's agriculture played in the successful prosecution of two world wars. I fully endorse the action taken by the government, and confirmed by a parliamentary majority,

The Budget-Mr. Bruneau in connection with the voting of a $65 million subsidy to the western wheat growers. However, I will avail myself of the opportunity presented by the reference to this matter to emphasize once again the importance of maintaining a proper relationship between all the constituent elements of our agricultural economy. There is an all too pronounced tendency in some quarters, and among some informed and less informed citizens, to regard the farmers of the eastern section of the country as quite capable of coping with their own problems. There is such a thing as penalizing farmers for their qualities of sturdy individualism. I have often asked myself if eastern farmers receive all the encouragement to which their efforts and initiative entitle them. I strongly urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to do his utmost to ensure the setting of a floor price for butter at 62 cents a pound, as suggested by Mr. A. L. Sloan, secretary of the Prescott and Russell counties federation of agriculture, and Mr. Emile Laplante, president general de 1'union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens. In relation to its farming population, Prescott county is the largest producing centre of cheddar cheese in North America. Flax is grown in large quantities.
Another drawback for the eastern farmers is the rampaging Nation river, the wickedest river in Canada which at flood times creates havoc on a vast area of the fertile golden triangle of the Ottawa valley. I sincerely hope that before too long a program will be devised to check this stream.
A full defence effort should not divert attention from the pressing needs of many of our fellow-Canadians. I have in mind the aged people of this country who have reached the twilight stage of life and are incapable of fending for themselves or providing for their own sustenance. There is too the tragic case of invalids who know not where to turn for succour, and who have no kith or kin to lend them a helping hand along life's all too thorny path.
There is some evidence that the program of price stabilization applied in the United States is producing results which should be reflected in the Canadian economy. Canadians are following this economic experiment with interest.
Taken by and large, the 1951 budget is one that should not fail to commend itself to the people of this country. It will be assayed and judged in terms of its ultimate results. Those results will, I feel confident, help most substantially in the furtherance of Canada's national defence program and redound also to the ultimate benefit of the Canadian population.
IMr. Bruneau.]


Mr. Frank T. Stanfield (Colchesler-Hanis):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few matters pertaining to my own province which I should like to bring to the attention of the house this evening. Before doing so I have a few observations to make concerning the budget. The first is with regard to the depreciation allowance the minister announced in his budget this year. Ever since income tax and corporation tax have come to be a major source of revenue they have always been allowed corporation depreciation rates levied on a very prudent, proven and well established basis. I believe it is a great mistake to depart from this procedure. I realize that there is a shortage of metals and steel that go into the making of machines, or in other words, capital goods. It was the minister's intention to discourage the buying of capital goods through the adoption of these new rates of depreciation. It would seem to me to have been much better to adopt a system of priorities such as that established during the last war. Then, if anyone wants to buy a new machine or spend a large amount of money on capital goods, he has to get a permit from the minister before he can proceed. It seems to me that would have been a much better system than the one proposed by the minister in the budget.
The second matter to which I want to refer is the tobacco tax. Cigarettes and tobacco do not greatly concern me, and I am not one to encourage their use. It is a sort of dirty habit, but today one cannot class cigarettes and tobacco as a luxury. They are used by many of our people, and it seems to me a lot of money to have to put out forty cents for twenty cigarettes. It seems still more foolish to me when you cross to the United States and buy cigarettes for around twenty cents, but when you come back into Canada you have to pay forty cents. It does seem to me that the spread is too great, and perhaps we have gone too far in the taxation of tobacco and cigarettes. The tax was steep enough before this increase was brought down.
The third matter I wish to bring to the attention of the house concerns the sales tax, I should say the increase in the sales tax. Personally, I am against sales taxes in any way, shape or form. I do believe that if we have to have a sales tax the amount of the tax should be shown to the people buying a shirt or a pair of shoes. I realize that this is poor politics, but I am certainly against any hidden taxes whatever. If we have to have a sales tax, I believe the amount of it should be shown in the cost of the goods to the buyer. I go still further and say that the sales tax is a bad tax. It bears hardest on

those who can least afford to pay it. I have heard it said by some officers in the Department of Finance that the sales tax is not pyramided. I cannot agree with that, Mr. Speaker. Anyone who is familiar with the retail trade in this country knows that the sales tax is pyramided to quite an extent. The retail mark-up is always taken on the sales tax as well as on the actual cost of the goods to the merchant. As to automobiles, I will admit that I do not believe there is a mark-up on the sales tax; but as far as I know, that is one of the few things that do not bear a sales tax mark-up on the retail price.
As I say, it is a hard tax on a great many people and is one that I certainly would like to see done away with. But if we must have a sales tax, I am all for showing it on the actual cost of the article to the purchaser at the retail level, or for working out some system whereby this may be done, because I think it should be brought home to the people at all times how much it costs to run this country, so that they will have a greater interest in that matter at all times.
Now I shall come a little closer to home. I should like to bring to the attention of the house this evening the matter of freight rates. To the maritime provinces this is a matter of great importance. Unless some better system can be worked out with regard to freight rates, we in the maritime provinces are certainly not going to have too much prosperity. We in the maritime provinces are so situated that our natural market in which to trade is not east and west but north and south, namely, in the New England states and the state of New York. But if we are closed off from those markets, or if we have to trade with western Canada and central Canada, certainly some system must be worked out whereby the freight rates will not bear so heavily on us in the maritimes.
I know that is an extremely difficult question. It is a hard one to work out. In the past efforts have been made to rectify that situation, and they have helped. But with the great increase in freight rates that has taken place over these last two years, it has become a much more difficult question to us in the maritimes than ever before. We had a great deal of prosperity during the war and since, and perhaps, with the great defence program getting under way again, we may not feel these heavy freight rates in the maritimes as much as we would if we were in ordinary times; but I can assure everyone that if the maritime provinces are to be prosperous, some cheaper method must be
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield worked out by which they can trade with the central provinces and also with western Canada.
I should also like to commend to the minister the continuation of the subsidy on feed grains. I can assure the minister that this subsidy is a great help to the farmers in our part of the world. It also helps to keep down the price of milk and other dairy products. I also think that it is a good thing for the western farmers, as it helps them to dispose of a great deal of their coarse grain. They can really grow those coarse grains in the western country much more cheaply and of much better quality than we can in the maritimes. I would strongly urge the Minister of Finance that the subsidy on these feed grains be retained; and I am sure that consideration of this suggestion would be greatly appreciated by all the farmers not only in the maritimes but in Quebec and Ontario as well.
It is perhaps a dangerous thing to raise this question of coal, inasmuch as people from the maritime provinces have been talking about coal for a long time; but a large item in the economic life of Nova Scotia is that commodity known as black coal. Today it is having a hard run against oil, in all its forms, that is burnt today not only in Ontario and Quebec but even in the maritime provinces themselves. There is, however, a large market for coal here in Ontario. Our coal now comes up to Montreal but little of it passes beyond that point or reaches Ontario. I notice that the number of tons of coal mined in Nova Scotia and in Alberta was less this year than it was a year ago but that the importations of United States coal have been greater.
I should like to see adopted some national policy with regard to coal, to the end that more of our Nova Scotia coal as well as Alberta coal would be brought to the Ontario market, thus giving the miners in our province more work. In addition, perhaps a greater number of mines could be operated than there are at present. There is no doubt about it that in our part of the country not nearly as many coal mines are in operation today as there used to be. Alberta, of course, has all kinds of resources, but we in Nova Scotia are not so fortunate. It would be a great gesture on the part of the rest of the country if some kind of national fuel policy could be drawn up with regard to coal, as a result of which more of our Nova Scotia coal might be brought to Ontario.
There is another way in which I am sure the government could greatly assist the people in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick. That is by the establishing of more

The Budget-Mr. Stanfield industries in connection with this great program of national defence that this government has just undertaken. If they could not locate large plants down there, perhaps a large number of small plants could be established in the various cities and towns throughout those two provinces, in which subcontracting work could be carried on. I do not know whether or not the same thing could be worked out with regard to Newfoundland, but I presume that a certain amount could be done over there. But I feel certain that, if the government so desired, a great deal of new employment could be provided in the maritime provinces by bringing to these provinces many of the industries that I feel they are contemplating setting up in Ontario and Quebec. I think it is only fair that those industries should be spread around the country as much as possible.
In Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick we have not the same full employment that is enjoyed in Ontario and Quebec. I am sure that the establishing of some of these plants in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would greatly improve the employment situation in that part of the country. It would also perhaps have the effect of permanently building up many more industries down in . those two provinces. I hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will listen to those of us on this side of the house who have been urging this course of action for some time. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) have been continually pounding on this question. I certainly give them my wholehearted support in the good work that they have been doing, and I do hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will do something about it.
Hon. members will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the Cuban market was open to us in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick it was a great market for many of the products of the maritime provinces. A few years ago the Liberal government brought in the West Indies trade treaty. The Cuban government took exception to it, and they stopped buying anything, or practically anything, from us in Canada. At that time we lost some of the best markets we had for our fish, potatoes and many other products, and we have never obtained a market to take the place of the Cuban market.
The West Indies market is a small market so far as we are concerned. I should like to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce take steps to try to get the Cuban market back for our exports in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I am not saying that the West

Indies trade treaty was a bad one, or anything of that kind, but it was a very tough one for the people in the maritimes. The West Indies market in no way, shape or form took the place of the Cuban market.
The English market is another market that we in the maritimes really must have. I do regret that there has been a little-I do not know the word to use-disagreement or misunderstanding between the English and ourselves with regard to exports. We had enjoyed the English market for many, many years, and up until the second world war broke out. We all know since that time England was not in a position to trade with us so freely or to put up good money for the exports from our country which had to be paid for in dollars. The result was that we lost our apple industry. We also lost a great deal of the lumber market, and other markets that we enjoyed, such as markets for pit props and other things which we sold to the British isles for so many years previous to 1940. It was another hard blow for- us in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, perhaps more so to New Brunswick than to Nova Scotia. However, I am glad to learn that the English market for our pit props has been reopened to us since the first of 1951.
When the government is working out trade agreements with the British isles I do hope that they will not overlook us, but will try to get our apple market back for us, and also the market for our long lumber, and many other of our commodities which we had enjoyed over there so many years prior to the second world war.
The English people are among the best there is. They always pay their bills, and we should make every effort to get back with them all the markets that we have lost.
If the minister has any great amount of money to throw around, to play Santa Claus with, as he sometimes has, perhaps he could appropriate a little to the maritime provinces to help conserve the forests of those provinces. The forest wealth of the maritime provinces is the greatest form of wealth we have. It has fast disappeared in the last few years. I should like to see something worked out whereby our forests could be conserved in the same way as they are being conserved in Sweden, in Finland and in many other European countries, where they have been successful in having large timber cuts each year, but have also been able to conserve their forest wealth.
The forest wealth is of very great importance to us, and I do not hear a great deal about it in this house. It is a matter of great concern to us in the maritime provinces.

Every hon. member should take a greater interest in conserving the forest wealth of this country.
Perhaps the house has listened long enough to what I have to say; but I do wish to say that we in the maritime provinces, as everybody knows, are not as fortunate as the people in western Canada. I do ask you all to give the very best consideration to our requests and to the special needs and the special help that we need in those provinces.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, since listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) deliver his budget, I have been somewhat indisposed, but I managed to pull myself together tonight in order to make a few comments on the budget because of the importance of this matter to my constituents, and because in the time that has elapsed since he gave his budget speech and now I have received communications from a number of people.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, before proceeding, that for one in my condition I do not get very much inspiration from the rather bored expression on the face of the Minister of Finance, but I do get some inspiration from the enlightened attention I am receiving from the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), so I shall continue with that inspiration.
We in this group fully realize that the Minister of Finance must have the funds to give effect to the decisions of this parliament -there is no question about that. And we know that money has to be raised and we know you cannot raise taxes without taking something away from people. This group believes in the principles of arithmetic, that two and two always make four, but we want to be sure that you take the two from the right people. We criticize this budget, Mr. Speaker, on two grounds. The first is, there is no specific provision in the budget for the checking of inflation.
I understand the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) told a group of labour people representing the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Trades and Labour Congress and the Catholic Federation of Labour that the government did not see fit to introduce price controls and subsidies now, but that when the budget was introduced they would find that it contained some provisions for checking inflation. Well, I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that a great number of members in this house and a great number of people in the country are not satisfied that this budget is a determined effort to check inflation.
We in this group believe, Mr. Speaker, in income tax as a fair and a sound tax, and we 80709-142
The Budget-Mr. Herridge believe in the principle of taxation on the basis of ability to pay. We do not believe that this budget, in these serious and urgent times, has been drafted sufficiently on the principle of ability to pay.
I am not going to speak at length this evening. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) gave a very full criticism of the budget. We had an excellent speech from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), particularly that portion of his speech in which he dealt with possibilities for changes in the act in connection with deduction of medical dues and so on. Then we had a very down to earth oration from the well loved member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). This afternoon the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) gave what I thought was an excellent criticism of the budget based on soundly presented evidence. I am going to deal with just a few items in the budget. I shall stay with the budget entirely from my point of view.
My constituents are already informing me that they consider this 25 per cent increase in the sales tax, the increase from 8 to 10 per cent, entirely wrong, and I think they are correct. We in this group are very much opposed to the principle of sales taxes and hidden taxes because we believe they are oppressive and unfair. This sales tax pyramids because it is applied by the manufacturer, by the wholesaler and by the retailer. We believe that this type of tax is not sound in principle, and if the government see fit to apply it, it should be applied at the retailer's level so that the consuming public will be asked to pay the 10 per cent only once.
The new 15 per cent levy on refrigerators, washing machines, gas and electric stoves was quite a surprise to many people in this country. We believe that that tax could have been omitted from the budget. This group particularly, and many members of this house, realize that the basis of the Canadian economy, if it is to be a stable and worthwhile economy, is the building of satisfactory homes. We believe that this tax is going to work considerable hardship on people, particularly young people who are attempting to furnish new home units and things of that sort.
The increase in the cigarette tax of three cents a package will create a small hardship for a good number of Canadians, but I do not think we can complain too much about that under the circumstances. While I am one of those who enjoy the so-called filthy habit of smoking pipe tobacco, I do not think we are suffering too much in the increase
2208	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Herridge in the tax on tobacco from 67 cents to $1.15 a pound. These are not essentials. I have found from experience, and as a result of my wife's prodding, that on occasion I can do without these things when I am pushed. So in future I shall be allowed just that much less tobacco and my budget for tobacco will be the same.
The increase in the special excise tax from 15 to 25 per cent on cars, radios and luxuries is one that we could expect. We cannot complain about the tax being increased on luxuries. I do not know whether we can complain too much about the increase in the tax on radios. But there are certain people in this country, particularly those with lower incomes and who may require a car with which to travel to work, or who would like to enjoy a radio, who may find this somewhat of a hardship.
I come now to the 20 per cent defence levy on personal income taxes, effective July 1. We contend that there should have been higher exemptions from that tax; that it should not have been a flat 20 per cent, that it should have been graduated. It will bear heavily on a certain group of people in this country, but if the exemptions for this special levy had been raised to $1,500 and $3,000 this defence levy could have been more easily borne by the majority of the Canadian people.
We in this group are pleased to note that the government has seen fit to allow union and professional dues to be deducted for income tax purposes. I think that is a tribute to the efforts of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which were supplemented by the efforts of this group. I remember the time when that was first brought up and there was so little support. It was considered to be a sort of Utopian idea; it was considered to be unnecessary. I am glad to note that the government of the day has seen fit to recognize the constructive and progressive work of the C.C.F. group in this house.
I understand1 that the corporation taxes under this budget will impose a tax of about 50 per cent on the profits of a corporation making over $10,000 per year. Under normal conditions that would be considered quite a high rate of taxation. I understand that the smaller corporations making a profit of $10,000 or less will not be affected by an increase in taxation. I am not so sure but that the smaller companies could have stood at least a 5 per cent increase from 15 per cent to 20 per cent. Some of the smaller companies are operated by people who draw good salaries and they are permitted to make a profit up to $10,000. When you consider 

The Budget-Mr. Herridge
I know it is difficult. We have wide spaces to travel in Canada, but I suggest that the government would be well advised to have more spot check audits in various types of businesses and for certain individuals. When we come to the question of taxation we must realize that the only persons who are bound to pay their full tax are the wage and salaried workers who have their tax deducted at the source, and the farmers who are selling their products through marketing agencies such as the wheat pool, Tree Fruits Limited in British Columbia, vegetable growers organizations, dairy co-operatives, and so on. I am not suggesting that there are large numbers of dishonest people, but the ones to whom I have referred are the only people concerning whom the government can be certain that they are collecting every dollar of income tax owing to the government. They are placed in a somewhat different position from any other people in this country.
The question of taxation in modern times has reached astounding proportions. I want to indicate the position of the average man of modest income in a province like British Columbia under the present circumstances. I want to indicate the taxes that will be paid by the average home or farm owner. He is not born more than a few minutes before his parents have got to buy a birth certificate so that the Minister of Finance will know he is here. Then he has a land tax, a school tax, and a provincial sales tax in British Columbia. Then he has an electrical energy tax, and a poll tax if he lives in a municipality. All citizens who use automobiles and gasoline pay the gasoline tax. After going along for a while he decides to get married and he has to buy a marriage licence.


Mr. Gibson:: Amusement tax.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And there is the amusement tax. I appreciate the assistance of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) very much. Then this person decides to get married and for the first time he begins to realize the full impact of federal taxes. Then he knows what income tax means, the excise taxes, the federal sales tax, and the tariffs which are a form of tax. On top of that he has an insurance tax. I am not giving them all; I am only giving the more important ones. I do not want to discourage people too much, but then he has many licences to buy. He buys a business licence, a radio licence, a fishing licence, a hunting licence, a car licence and a driver's licence. After he has paid taxes all during his life he dies, and then they insist upon his relatives paying for the death certificate so the Minister of Finance will know he is gone. Then shortly


after his death the monument manufacturer comes around and says, "Don't you think it would be nice to put up a nice headstone to your relative?" He might suggest, "I will put on it 'Rest in peace; Abbott cannot get you now.' "
The situation in the world today is serious. The position of Canada, in common with all other members of the United Nations, is very serious. I am disturbed by the business as usual attitude of a good number of corporations and individuals in this country whose main motive in life is still the making of profits. I am not going to be sanctimonious about this. We live in a capitalist society and companies have to make profits in order to exist, just as individuals who invest their money have to make reasonable profits. But I meet any number of people who seem to have no conception of what faces the western world, but are just as keen as ever on raking in every dollar from the Canadian economy that the law will permit, and in many instances more than the law legally allows.
There is evidence of that right in this house, and in the newspapers of the country. Look at the prospectuses being issued by those making application for gas pipe line charters. You should read some of the literature being circulated in the United States. They say that in Canada there is a glorious opportunity to make more money than can be made by any other investment; and it is a highly productive investment. It is the same with the oil pipe lines; you should see some of the prospectuses I have in my office. There is no mention of the seriousness of the situation. And mind you, when you are doing these things, building pipe lines and so on, there are great opportunities for depreciation and things of that kind. Look at my -own province, where the British Columbia Telephone Company is asking for an increase in its authorized capital from $25 million to $75 million. People do not realize that the telephone business is the greatest industry in North America. The owners of the Bell company in the United States have more capital and make more profits than United States Steel and two American railroads put together. This new capital in British Columbia will come principally from the United States; and you see advertisements in Canadian newspapers, even here in Ottawa, in connection with preferred stock issues and bonds which are being sold in the United States. The lure, shall I say, or the whole approach is that here is an opportunity to make more money than usual, more money than average business is able to make.
The same situation exists in connection with other corporations, and again I am

going to mention International Nickel, which I consider one of the vilest monopolies in this country today. These companies think of profits while we are asking men to join the armed forces and defend the principles of the United Nations in Korea. Before I proceed may I say I firmly believe that no member of the active forces who leaves Canada to serve this country in the field should be required to pay income tax on the pay he receives as a member of the armed forces. I think that is the least we can do for them and their dependents while they are overseas. But here we have these large profits, with people going about their business quite unconcerned over the fact that the whole world about them may be crumbling. It takes a great deal to shake large segments of humanity out of their lethargy and greed.
I have suggested that we should have an excess profits tax. This would be a way to assist companies in meeting wage demands, and would help keep prices and wages in better relationship if applied with price controls and subsidies. In addition it would give us the extra money we require to do something about old age pensions, which were dealt with so well the other evening by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In addition it would make it possible for us to distribute the burden more fairly and lift what we consider an unfair burden from the shoulders of the lower income groups.
In view of my approach to the budget and my criticisms, Mr. Speaker, when the vote is taken I intend to support the subamendment and the amendment.
(Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, like other members I have received during the past few days many messages and letters from farmers in my riding asking the government for a floor price on butter, namely 62 cents to the producer. I know this is a slippery matter as a certain party has learned at its expense. However, even if the problem should be a difficult one, that is no reason for refusing to cope with it.
The workers in our cities and villages must be asking themselves how it is that in these critical times, when the cost of living is already so high, public men are seeking to set the price of butter at what must appear a very high level. If it is fair to set a reasonable floor price for the farmer, I believe it is only logical to let workers know the reason why. I should like to give my personal impression on the matter without, of course, attempting to solve the problem in my own way.
The Budget-Mr. Poulin
We know that over 400,000 producers are interested in Canada's dairy industry and that over two million people are employed in that industry. We also know that butter is the most important product of that industry. City workers will readily understand that those two million people, who are in fact consumers, make up a very important market, since those same workers purchase manufactured goods.
They will surely understand that, in their own interest, they should not ignore the agricultural class. They cannot risk that those two million consumers interested in dairy production stop purchasing their products. I believe it is not an overstatement to say that the Canadian dairy industry now stands in jeopardy.
There are various reasons for this, some of them rather obvious. First, there is the high price currently offered farmers for beef cattle. Last summer, in rural districts, those of my constituency at any rate, I saw dealers go up and down the countryside every day offering to buy from the farmers not only their beef cattle but their dairy cattle as well. Farmers are naturally tempted to sell their dairy cattle since this stock fetches a high price. That is the first threat.
Of course, the farmer has to be cautious and avoid cutting down his dairy herd, for while it takes very little time to cut down, it takes very much more time to build it up again.	,
The second danger is somewhat like the first, because of the fact that our dairy cattle find a ready market south of the border. On March 19 last, in reply to a question in my name on the order paper, we were told1 that 47,000 of our dairy cattle had been exported to the United States in 1950. There lies another temptation for the farmer. He is likely to yield to that temptation because he is always offered a high price.
The third danger lies in the manufacture and sale of margarine in this country. I must say I am very happy that the Quebec government has banned the manufacture and sale of margarine. In my humble opinion, margarine is one of the greatest threats still facing the dairy industry.
We note that between 1949 and 1950 the production of margarine has gone up 27 per cent. Also that in the same period butter production has decreased 6 per cent.
As for the consumption of margarine, we see that in 1950 it was up 30 per cent over 1949 and that in the same period butter sales had gone up only 2-5 per cent.

The Budget-Mr. Poulin
Plainly there has been a rapid and constant rise in production and consumption of margarine.
On the other hand, we find that butter production has fallen off while consumption remained at about the same level. Of course, I am no economist, but I have some business experience and it seems to me that these figures show clearly that margarine now endangers our butter production and consequently our dairy industry.
While I am dealing with the butter situation may I be permitted to mention what happened in the last couple of months, when butter was selling at 75, 80, 85 and even 90 cents a pound in our small villages.
Although the producer had sold his product last fall at 57 or 58 cents a pound, it was stored for the winter and, two or three months later, it sold at huge profits. I am not in a position to say who is responsible for this condition but it surely is untenable. It should not exist and should not be allowed to recur if it can be avoided. I know that some people are dissatisfied in my district and I fear that the public will be resentful, through no fault of their own.
I wish to add a few words about taxes, especially the general sales tax which has gone up 25 per cent. It has been said many times that this tax directly affects the consumer and will surely entail a higher cost of living. As another result-it can already be foreseen and all the newspapers have foretold it-the labour unions will request higher wages. What will happen? The increases will either be granted or they will not. If they are granted, they will have a direct effect on the cost of living, which will rise still more. If the salaries are not increased, well, a state of uneasiness will prevail amongst the working classes, an uneasiness which may well become dangerous.
The second tax levied-and it is perhaps more striking to the imagination-is the increase of 20 per cent in the income tax. Already this tax was imposed on a class of people with rather small incomes. I wish to express the opinion, if I may, that all incomes under $3,000 should not be taxed. Nevertheless the income tax is increased by 20 per cent. The poor will necessarily suffer, although taxpayers with large families have the benefit of certain exemptions based on the number of children, which is an excellent principle. It is generally acknowledged that this is all to the good. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the 20 per cent surtax is applied at too low a level of income and should have been applied to a much higher level.
There is perhaps one item that the government forgot to tax-and it was referred

to this evening rather ironically-and that is alcohol and beer. This omission has evoked many a pointed and caustic remark on the part of the public. But our country's treasurer simply forgot to levy a tax on liquor and beer. Yet it would have been easy since, in my opinion, they are not essential products. They may even be harmful in some instances. Revenue from taxes on liquor amounted in 1950 to $107 million. If the two taxes I have just mentioned, that is a 20 per cent tax and a 25 per cent tax, had been added to this, the tax would have stood at 45 per cent and the revenue would have been increased by some $50 million.
I know that there is a limit to increasing levies and that any product that is too heavily taxed might not sell so well or be consumed so widely and might not bring so much revenue. The country would be no worse off if the day ever came when no liquor at all was consumed. That would be no great evil. At this point, may I recall an incident that occurred in 1942 when we were then going through a very trying period. The world was waging a war that threatened to destroy everything. We needed all our strength. I well recall that on Christmas day 1942, the late prime minister, Mr. King, took the trouble to broadcast a plea to the nation. Pointing out that we needed all our energy for the defence effort, he asked the Canadian people to abstain entirely and to practise temperance.
If that was the right thing to do then, it would certainly be all the more so now. Once again, may I say that even if consumption of liquor were to disappear because of excessive taxation, that would not be such a great evil for the country.
For some time now, the government have been requested to control prices, to take steps in order to prevent too rapid increases in the price of foodstuffs. Reference was made to controls, to a controlled economy. It was stated that there was to be no interference with private enterprise. All that is all right. Personally, I am all for it. During the last war, controls were imposed and prices were frozen.
I am a believer in free enterprise just as long as it does not deprive a certain portion of the people of their liberty. I am anything but a socialist. Needless to say, I am no communist. I should not have to assert it, in spite of what has been said in this house by the member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon), who claims I have been repeating communistic propaganda. He need not fear; I am not spreading any communistic propaganda at all.

The Budget-Mr. Poulin
However, it cannot be denied that today the poorer classes are in an absolutely miserable way. If we do not wish them to rise in revolt some day, we will have to seriously consider their plight.
I wonder if the situation is really well known, if we know exactly what goes on among our poorer people? I would like to be entirely impartial. I have no wish to criticize needlessly but I do think that most of our public men are not well acquainted with the true state of affairs, do not really know what goes on in our poorer families and that, consequently, they have not much to offer in the way of suggestions towards putting things right, in order to help out those of less than modest means.
May I be permitted to make a humble suggestion. I have no illusions on that point for I know perfectly well that it will not be well received. Besides, no one is bound to accept it. To remedy the state of poverty in which a large part of our people find themselves due to the high cost of living, the government might double the rate of family allowances. I know that it would cost something like $275 million a year. It is a lot of money and it would mean new taxes. These taxes would have to be levied where they would not affect directly the poorer classes.
I was wondering a moment ago if the statesmen are really aware of the situation. Let us consider the cost of a few items taken from the list of consumer goods; milk, for example, which sells from 18 to 20 cents a quart. It costs between $5 and $6 a month to buy milk for one child, if we take for granted that a child should get a minimum of one quart of milk a day. A man having five children, infants or older children-. such families are not uncommon here-he will have to spend from $25 to $30 a month on that one item.
And now butter, which sells at 70 cents per pound. Let us say that a child needs trounces per day, which is not exaggerated. It will cost $2 per month per child, or $10 for the family. Thus for those items only, milk and butter, that family will have to spend between $35 and $40 a month.
To that must be added bread, meat, vegetables and a few sweets; all of which are essential to the normal development of children. If we add clothes, shoes, etc., how can the mother of a large family in the low-income bracket give her children the bare
necessities? That means privation for the children, anxiety for the parents and continuous nervous strain for everybody. Should such economic conditions persist, it is highly probable that such a family would bring up underdeveloped citizens both physically and intellectually, individuals unprepared to play their part, embittered, aroused and perhaps persecuted, of which at least a few will easily fall prey to subversive propaganda.
However true it may be, as the old saying goes, that society is no better than the family, it is one thing that is apparently overlooked in certain quarters. This is not merely an opinion but an established fact recognized by leading sociologists of all races and creeds. In seeking to make my humble contribution to this debate tonight, it is chiefly in order to champion the cause of the family, particularly the large family, the bulwark of society. I did suggest to the government a few moments ago to double the amount of family allowances as a means of protecting the family, and therefore society, in these troubled times.
Money can always be found though not always from the right source whenever preparations have to be made to prevent war. We rightly fear that an enemy from without might destroy our institutions, our freedom and our rights.
Let us not forget however that the enemy from within can achieve the same resiults, as surely if not as openly, by slowly undermining the very foundations of our society.
Let us give our taxation and economic policies a definite family trend; let us protect the family against too heavy taxes. Let us give it, on the other hand, the financial assistance it requires to carry on; let us spare the family the "undeserved misery" mentioned by a great pope.
When danger becomes more threatening, when a call is made for defenders of the country, where do we draw generously to ensure a continuous flow of soldiers? From the abundant source of large families.
The homeland sometimes asks from the mother the sacrifice of two, three and even four sons. It has happened during the two last wars. In return, at least, let the country be generous towards her, let the country support her in her arduous task, let the country give her all facilities in her work of salvation.
To provide for the security of our families is to provide for the security of society.


Mr. P. L. Dube (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed1 a pleasure to avail

The Budget-Mr. Dube myself of this opportunity of saying a few words in this house to draw the attention of the government to certain necessary projects in my constituency of Restigouche-Madawaska.
I must say with regret, Mr. Speaker, that my constituency is not receiving its rightful share of money spent in this country.
The citizens of Campbellton derive their living almost exclusively from trade within the limits of their city. It is therefore most important that transportation facilities should be improved there. This requires, above all, the erection of a bridge across the Restigouche river. At present, the majority of the people have to purchase what they need by catalogue, as there is no means of crossing the river, especially in the spring and fall, when the ferry service is suspended. That situation hampers the city's development. The only remedy is to build a bridge.
You probably heard, Mr. Speaker, that the ferry which operated between Campbellton and Cross Point on the Restigouche river was destroyed by fire. Following this catastrophe, a delegation of businessmen from that district waited on the Quebec and Ottawa governments early in April in order to convince the appropriate authorities that a bridge over that river-we have been requesting it for more than thirty years-is essential to the inhabitants of both shores.
I do not hesitate to urge the government, once again, to undertake the building of this bridge which would improve the lot of these people and link Quebec and New Brunswick in a friendly manner. The city of Campbellton boasts modern hospitals, specialists in surgery, movie houses, arenas, garages, stores of every description and so on. It is also a valuable seaport, as well as the terminal point of an important railway. However, Campbellton's industrial development was delayed by the lack of permanent communications between the two provinces.
I am convinced that if the Department of Public Works took the trouble of making an investigation, based on the representations made by civic organizations such as the town council and the chamber of commerce, they would realize the necessity of carrying out this project for the greater benefit of the people in general.
For several months, indeed for several years, the municipal authorities have been


asking that a bridge be erected over the Restigouche river. The members of the committee in charge of this project had to overcome many obstacles, but they are prepared to sacrifice time and money to achieve their end, namely, the development of trade, the welfare of the farmers and the establishment of new industries.
From the political point of view, it would serve to strengthen the bonds which unite us with our northern neighbours, thus promoting national unity.
Looking at the matter from a personal point of view, we could then, when visiting Quebec, avoid a lot of inconveniences-for example, the annoyance of having to wait for the ferry, to name but one.
Allow me, Mr Speaker, to recall that we have repeatedly requested the C.N.R. authorities to erect a freight shed in the town of Edmundston. We consider this to be a very necessary project since the town has a fairly important railway terminal. I want to add that revenues from the storing of freight, for the year 1950, reached a figure of over two million dollars. According to information received from authorized sources, $50,000 has been voted for the construction of that shed. The structure we have now was built back in 1914 when the town had a population of only two or three thousand. Now the population is 10,000. Trade has grown threefold since those days. I am proud to say we are the only division in the Atlantic region to show a profit. Yet it is the division that receives the least encouragement.
Moreover our station, which was built at the same time as the shed, is in a very bad condition. It has no waiting-room, and travellers should be provided with the comfort they deserve for patronizing the Canadian National Railways.
I therefore urge the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to speed up the building of a shed and station at that point.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I would fail in my duty if I did not also mention the plight of the potato-growers of my constituency in the past few years. The government has put a ceiling price on their product. Had it not been for the set price they could have sold their potatoes at $5 or $6 a barrel, and they would all be better off today.
I am disappointed to learn that no answer has been given to the delegation which came

to Ottawa, during the week of March 20, to meet officials of the Department of Agriculture and ask the government to include their product in the list of subsidized commodities. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) persists in his refusal to grant them the help they ask for, many of them will have to give up their farms. This would be unfortunate after all the sacrifices the farmers have made in order to improve their crops.
I am counting on the good will of the Minister of Agriculture and I hope he will
The Budget-Mr. Dube reconsider his decision and help this group of citizens so worthy of all his consideration.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Applewhaite the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: We will continue this debate tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 20, 1951